The Hyderabad Tenancy Act applies to agricultural lands situated within municipal limits unless they are exempted from the application of the Act by a notification in the official gazette that such lands are reserved for urban or industrial development. A protected tenant is entitled to recover possession not only from his landlord if he causes dispossession without obtaining necessary orders from the Tahsildar, but also he is entitled to recover possession from any person who dispossesses him at the instance of his landlord.

( 1 ) THE revision petition is directed against the judgement passed by the district Revenue Officer, Hyderabad in case No. E4/32170/70 dated 4-5-1971 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad urban in file No. A3/1988/69 dated 29-8-1970.

( 2 ) THE petitioner claims to be the protected tenant and he was given a tenancy certificate. He contends that the respondents filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer for the cancellation of the tenancy certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. But their application was dismissed. Aggrieved by that order, they preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, that appeal was also dismissed. Against that order, the\ preferred revision petition in the High Court. But that was also dismissed. But the respondents unlawfully and forcibly disposes- sed the petitioner on 30-1-1969. Hence he filed a petition which was registered as A3/1988/69 before the Tahsildar under section 32 (1) of the Tenancy Act for restoration of his possession by evicting the respondents. The respondents before the Tahsildar contested the application. They contended that the petitioner was never in possession of the said lands. They asserted that they were the protected tenants and they were in possession of the said lands from the beginning. They relied upon extracts from pahanis of 1951, 1964, 1967 and 1968 and also the rental deed executed in their favour by the landlord Gaya Singh who is also the landlord of the petitioner before the Tahsildar.

( 3 ) THE Tahsildar held that when protected tenancy certificate was granted to the petitioner (before the Tahsildar), it confers rights of protected tenancy in favour of the petitioner to whom it was issued and it became final as the petition filed by the respondents before the revenue Divisional officer for cancellation of the same certificate, the appeal filed by them before the Joint Collector and the Revision petition filed in the high Court were dismissed. He also held tlia in view of the fact that protected tenancy certificate which was issued in favour of the petitioner became final, the entries in the pahanis produced by the respondents confer no rights of protected tenancy on them. So holding, the tahsildar allowed the petition and ordered for restoration of petitioner s possession by evicting the respondents before him. Aggrieved with the said order, respondents 1 and 2 (before the Tahsildar) preferred appeal before the District Revenue Officer. Before the learned District Revenue Officer the appellants contended that since the suit lands were situated within the municipal limits of hyderabad, the provisions of Hyderabad Tenancy Act are not applicable. It was further contended that since the appellants have been treated as trespassers by the respondents, the petition under section 32 of the Act is not maintainable since it postulates a case where the parties are landholder and tenant or the persons claiming through them. The learned District Revenue Officer accepted the first contention and held that the lands in question are situated within the municipal Limits of Hyderabad and the Hyderabad Tenancy Act does not apply. The Learned District Revenue officer accepted even the second contention and held that as per the averments of the petition, the respondents therein were trespassers and that being so, the tahsildar has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under section 32 which presupposes landholder and tenant relationship between the parties to the petition. So holding, he set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and allowed the appeal.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said orders, the present revision petition was preferred by the 1st respondent Devanath singh.

( 5 ) SRI Ananih Reddy contends that the District Revenue Officer is not at all correct to hold that the Tenancy Act. does not apply to the lands in question merely because they are situated wilflin the municipal limits. He also contends th