P.N.BHAGWATI, J.

(1) WE are not impressed by the argument of Dr. Chitale that on the release of the land in question from the management of the court the tenancy of the person who was inducted on the land by the Administrator appointed by the court, came to an end OH the ground that the Administrator had only limited power to grant tenancy of the land. On this view, we would have ordinarily dismissed the appeal, but Dr. Chitale, appearing on behalf of the appellants, urged before us that the 1st repondent was only a subtenant of the land and by reason of S. 27 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948, the sub-tenancy was illegal and hence the 1st respondent was not entitled to protection from eviction. Mrs Wad. appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent, raised an objection that this contention had not been taken by the appellants at any stage in the proceedings and it was for the first time in this court that it was being put forward on behalf of the appellants and we should not, therefore, permit the appellants to rely upon it. Now it is true that this contention was not at any time taken by the appellants and that it was sought to be raised for the first time