Judgment

KAILASAM, J.:- This appeal arises out of special leave granted by this Court against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature Bombay at Nagpur. For convenience sake we will refer to the appellant as the tenant and the respondent No. 1 as the landlord because the history of the litigation is 25 years old and the parties had resorted to various remedies before various Tribunals.

2. The dispute related to Field Survey No. 6 area 15 acres 23 gunthas in the village Gangaon. Jodhraj the father of Narnarayan, the landlord before us, died some time in 1942. Narnarayan who was then a minor became the owner and his widowed mother Trivenibai leased the land on behalf of the minor to the tenant before us, for one year. After the expiry of the lease on 31st January 1952, the tenant refused to deliver possession of the field. The mother filed the suit, Suit No. 125-A of 1952 for possession. The suit as well as further proceedings by way of appeal and second appeal failed and the tenant was held to be protected lessee for a period of five years from 1951-52.

3. Availing himself of the benefit of S. 9-A of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act which enabled the minor to get possession within 3 years of his attaining majority he filed a petition for it. By an order dated 8th August, 1955 the Sub-Divisional Officer found that Narnarayan is entitled to terminate the lease of the tenant Kesheorao and ordered that lease of Kesheorao is terminated under S. 9-A (2) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultral Leases Act and further ordered under that section that Narnarayan shall apply for possession of the suit field after 31st March, 1956. This order admittedly became final. Pending the proceedings under S. 9-A the landlord applied for recovery of mesne profits or in the alternative for lease amount. The landlord subsequently filed Civil Suit No. 3 of 1960 against the tenant for recovery of mesne profits or for rent. The suit was necessitated because the tenant continued to be on the land. The claim was for mesne profits or for lease amount. When this case was pending the landlord filed another application under S. 100 (2) and S. 36 read with S. 38 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1953. The relief prayed for was for a declaration that Kesheorao was not a tenant. In the alternative the landlord claimed for relief of resumption of the suit filed under Ss. 36 (2) and 38 (1) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The tenancy suits and the landlords application were also prolonged and ultimately the appellate authority took the view that the tenancy was terminated by order dated 8th August, 1955 under S. 9-A of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act and that his possession thereafter was not in the capacity of a tenant and therefore set aside the order dated 30th September, 1963 and allowed the landlords claim for possession under S. 132 (3) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958. The tenant took up the matter to the Revenue Tribunal. Nagpur and the Revenue Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Authority holding that the tenant was a protected lessee and entitled to enjoy that status under S. 6 of the Tenancy Act. Holding that the landlord in his petition under S. 36 (2) will have to satisfy the condition contained in S. 38 (3) and (4) of the Tenancy Act the Revenue Tribunal decided that the landlord was not entitled to that relief. Aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Tribunal the landlord filed the writ petition out of which this appeal arises before the Nagpur High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution praying that the order of the Revenue Tribunal may be quashed and the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector may be restored. The High Court allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of the Revenue Tribunal. The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to get possession under S. 36 read with S. 38 and S. 100 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy Act and directed that the possession will be given t