g. patwardhan and k r. choudhri for the respondents.
233 and 185 of 1955 respectively.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sinha c.j.
282 283 of 1959.
appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree dated december 18 1956 of the bombay high companyrt at bombay in second appeals number.
who heard the second appeals allowed the appeals and dismissed the suits with companyts throughout.
the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act bombay act lxvii of 1948 which hereinafter will he referred to as the act was extended to baroda on august 1 1949.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
this judgment will govern both the cases.
in the first instance that the numberification set out above under s. 88 1 d operated with effect from december 28 1948 when the act came into force.
as the defendants did number comply with the terms of the numberice and companytinued in possession of the lands to which they had been inducted the landlords instituted suits for possession in the civil court.
the suits out of which these appeals arise had been instituted by the appellants on the basis that the tenants respondents had become trespassers on the service of numberice in march 1950 with effect from the beginning of the new agricultural section in may 1951.
but on second appeal by the tenants the learned single judge.
but reliance was placed upon the numberification issued by the bombay government on april 24 1951 to the following effect in exercise of the powers companyferred by clause d of sub section 1 of section 88 of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act 1948 bombay lxvii of 1948 the government of bombay is pleased to specify the area within the limits of the municipal borough of baroda city and within the distance of two miles of the limits of the said borough as being reserved for urban number agricultural or industrial development.
these two appeals by special leave directed against the judgment and decree of a single judge of the bombay high companyrt raise a companymon question of law and have therefore been heard together.
may 2.
s. pathak o. c. mathur j. b. dadachanji and ravinder narain for the appellants.
the appellants were plaintiff landlords and the respondents were tenants in possession of certain lands which were situate in the erstwhile state of baroda before it became part of the state of bombay by merger.
