Gajendragadkar, J.

1. These three revnl. applns. raise an interesting question as to whether the mulgenis are tenants within the meaning of Bombay Act XXIX [29] of 1939. The petnrs. in all the three cases before me are mulgenis. Three suits had been filed against them by their respective landlords claiming rent from them on the basis of an agreement between them. The mul-genis resisted the claim on the ground that the rent under the agreement could not be recovered having regard to the provisions of Section 15 (2), Bombay Tenancy Act. That naturally raised the question as to whether the mulgenis were tenants within the meaning of Section 2A of the said Act. The learned Judge who tried the three suits came to the conclusion that they are not tenants within the meaning of the said section as such are not entitled to the protection of Section 15. He has, therefore, decreed the pltfs. claims. In their present revn. applns. before me the mulgenis have contended that the learned Judge was wrong in holding that they were not tenants in coming to that conclusion he has not properly appreciated the real nature incidents of the mulgeni tenure. This tenure prevails on an extensiv