JUDGMENT

HANSARIA, J.:—In this appeal we are basically concerned with the interpretation of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short the Act) as amended by Bombay Act No. 33 of 1952. Being concerned with a legislation beneficial to tenants, the Courts are required to give a liberal interpretation; and if we can foretell our conclusion, according to us, the amendment of 1952 would relate back to the Act as enacted. In any case, the amendment would apply to the suit which was pending when the amendment had come into force. In view of this conclusion of ours, the appeal shall have to be dismissed, as the amendment has given benefit to the tenants, who are respondents in this appeal.

2. The facts which need to noted for the disposal of the appeal are that the appellants filed a suit on 25-4-1949 for possession of the land under the occupation of the defendants. The suit had come to be filed after the plaintiffs had issued a notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 19-10-1947 under Section 7 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 terminating the tenancy and claiming that the land was required for personal cultivation. The possession was demanded by the notice on the expiry of 31st March, 1949. In the meantime, the Act came into force whose Section 88(1)(c) stated that the Act would not apply to any area within the limits, inter alia, of the municipal borough of Surat and within a distance of two miles of the limit of the borough. The suit land being admittedly situate within this periphery the Act did not apply, when enacted, to the area in question. However, an amendment was made by Bombay Act 33 of 1952 which substituted a new Clause (c) deleting that part of earlier Clause (c) which made the Act inapplicable to an area of two miles within the limits of municipal borough named in the clause. Now, if the 1952 amendment were to apply retrospectively, that is, from the date coming into force of the Act, the civil Court in which the suit for eviction was filed would admittedly cease to have jurisdiction; and vice versa. This point has been answered differently by the four adjudicating authorities below, one reversing the decision of the other on appeal being preferred to it. The latest decision is that of the Letters Patent Bench of the Gujarat High Court which has held that the amendment is retrospective.

3. As the dispute is about the retrospectively of the amendment, it is not necessary to note in detail the case of the parties as put forward in the plaint and written statement. Suffice to say that according to the plaintiffs the land in question was leased to the ancestors of the defendants for 51 cultivating seasons that is from 1894 to 1945. Thereafter, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs executed a registered lease in favour of the defendants on 12-1-1942 for five years, because of which the lease would have expired on 11-1-1947. The Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 having come into force in the meantime, the defendants became protected tenants and because of the insertion of Section 23 in that Act subsequently the duration of the lease got statutorily extended for 10 years, that is, till 11-1-1952. The land was purchased by the plaintiffs on 4-8-1947, where after a notice was issued on 9-10-1947 terminating the tenancy and demanding possession on the expiry of the lease on 31st March, 1945. The defendants not having delivered vacant possession, the present suit was filed on 25-4-1949. The defendants took the stand that they being protected tenants and Section 89(2)(b) of the Act having saved this right, the suit for eviction did not lie; in any case, it did not lie in the civil Court. In the present appeal, we are only concerned with the question of jurisdiction inasmuch as the Letters Patent Bench has not expressed any opinion on the merits of other point raised in this appeal.

4. The defendants case that despite what has been provided in Section 88(1)(c) of the Act, they continued to be protected tenants cannot be acce