Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, J.

(1) THE appellant owned a land, survey No. 72, at Shiroli in the district of Kolhapur. The land was held by the appellant for the performance of miscellaneous inferior services and was classified as a Huzur Sanadi Inam land. Respondents have been in possession of a portion of the land as tenants and were declared as purchasers under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, LXVII of 1948, (hereinafter called the Tenancy Act). Consequent upon the declaration, the Agricultural Lands tribunal, Hatkanagale, fixed the price of the land under S. 32G of the Tenancy Act. That decision was confirmed in appeal by the Special Deputy Collector, Kolhapur, and in revision by the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal. The appellant filed a petition in the Bombay High court under Article 227 of the Constitution to challenge the decision of the revenue tribunal but that petition was dismissed summarily by a learned Single Judge. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High court.

(2) THE Tenancy Act provides by S. 32 that on 1/04/1957, called the "tillers day", every tenant shall, subject to certain conditions, be deemed to have purchased from his landlord the land held by him as a tenant. S. 32G requires the Agricultural Land tribunal to determine the purchase price of the land in accordance with a statutory formula. The dispute before us is not as regards the arithmetic of the price fixation but as regards whether the respondents are qualified at all to purchase the land under S. 32 of the Tenancy Act. The right of a tenant to opt for a compulsory purchase of the agricultural land held by him is no longer open to constitutional doubt or difficulty. But, the respondents right to purchase the land is questioned by the appellant on the ground that they ceased to be tenants and have therefore no right of purchase.

(3) THIS plea is founded on the provisions of the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, XXII of 1955, (hereinafter called the Alienations Abolition Act). It is argued that with the abolition of inams effected under that Act, the old relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and respondents came to an end, that with the regrant of occupancy rights to the appellant a new relationship of landlord and tenant came into existence between them and since the respondents did not exercise their right to repurchase the land within the period prescribed by S. 32-0 of the Tenancy Act, they have forfeited that right. According to the appellant, the provisions of the Tenancy Act and the Alienations Abolition Act are in a material respect inconsistent and the inconsistency has to be resolved by giving precedence to the latter Act.

(4) THE merit of these contentions depends upon the validity of the basic premise that with the abolition of inams which the Alienations Abolition Act brought about, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and the respondents came to anend. We see no warrant for this premise.

(5) BY S. 4 of the Alienations Abolition Act, all alienations in the merged territories were abolished with effect from the appointed date. As a result of the abolition of inams effected by S. 4, all alienated lands became liable under S. 5 to the payment of land revenue in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. S. 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Alienations Abolition Act provide for the grant of occupancy rights in respect of the erstwhile inam lands. There is no provision in that Act by virtue of which the relationship of landlord and tenant between the ex-inamdar and his tenant would stand extinguished. On the contrary, S. 28 provides that nothing contained in the Act shall in any way be deemed to affect the application of any of the provisions of the Tenancy Act to any alienated land or,

THE mutual rights and obligations of a landlord and his tenants save in so far as the said provis