The Collector had the power to revise the Mamlatdar's order under S. 76A and the amended S. 32 could retrospectively affect pending applications for ejectment.

Judgment

SARKAR, J.: The appellants are tenants against whom order for ejectment had been passed at the instance of the landlord. They contend that in view of a certain amendment of S. 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948, these orders were illegal and had rightly been set aside by the Collector under S. 76A of that Act. The questions that arise in these appeals depend on the interpretation of these two sections.

2. There were eight tenants and each of them has filed an appeal. We have thus eight appeals before us. As the landlord was the same person, the respondent in each appeal is the same. The landlord took steps under Ss. 14, 31 and 29 of the Act against each tenant and these have led to the present proceedings. Section 14 gives a landlord power to terminate a tenancy on the ground inter alia of the tenant s failure to pay rent by giving the tenant a notice informing him of his intention to terminate the tenancy. Section 31 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in S. 14, a landlord may after giving notice to the tenant terminate the tenancy if he bona fide requires the land for cultivating it personally. Section 29 of the Act states that a landlord shall not obtain possession of land from a tenant except under an order made by the Mamlatdar on the application mentioned in it.

3. On May 1, 1956, the landlord had given a notice to the tenants under S. 14. On December 25, 1956, the landlord had given a fresh notice to the tenants under S. 31. On March 28, 1957 the landlord filed applications against the tenants before the Mamlatdar for ejectment under S. 29 on the strength of the notice under S. 31 and thereafter on July 10, 1957, he filed another set of applications for their ejectment on the strength of the notice under S. 14. By various orders made between December 20 and 25, 1957, the Mamlatdar allowed the landlord s applications for ejectment on the basis of the notice under S. 14. Thereafter on March 1, 1958, the landlord withdrew his applications for ejectment pursuant to the notice under S. 31. The tenants did not file any appeal against the Mamlatdar s orders of ejectment but moved the Collector under S. 76A of the Act for setting them aside. Three successive sets of such applications had been made by the tenants. The first set of applications was made on August 4, 1958. On August 14, 1958, the Collector acting under S. 76A called for the record of the ejectment proceedings before the Mamlatdar. The record did not arrive till December 24, 1958. In the meantime, however, on August 26, 1958 the tenants made the second set of applications under S. 76A. On October 3 and 4, 1958, the Collector appears to have made orders purporting to reject both sets of the tenants applications under S. 76A. On or about October 6, 1958, the tenants preferred a joint application under S. 76A and this was also reject by the Collector on October 17, 1958. On November 7, 1958, the local Congress Committee passed a resolution stating that the tenants were being subjected to harassment and demanding that justice be done to them. A copy of the resolution was sent to the collector. Subsequently on December 24, 1958, the record of the proceedings "called for was received by the Collector. The Collector thereafter gave notice to the parties, heard them and made an order on February 17, 1959 setting aside the Mamlatdar s orders of ejectment on the ground that in view of the provisions of S. 32 as amended by Act XXXVIII of 1957 the tenants could not be evicted. The landlord then moved the Revenue Tribunal in revision to set aside the Collector s order of February 17, 1959 but his application were dismissed. He, thereafter, applied to the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution to set aside the orders of the Tribunal and the Collector. The High Court allowed these applications and hence the present appeals by the tenants. As there was a separate application to the High Court by the landlord against each of the eigh