1. This petition raises an important question as to the powers of a Collector under Section 84, Tenancy Act. It would appear that the first opponent is the tenant of the petitioner and according to the petitioner, the name of the first opponents father appeared as a protected tenant in the record of rights. The father died some time in May 1952, and it is the case of the petitioner that opponent 1 surrendered the lease.

The petitioner approached the Mamlatdar and obtained an order under Section 29(2). According to the petitioner he had already obtained possession of the land from opponent 1 and he got the possession confirmed by the order of the Mamlatdar. The case of the tenant was that notwithstanding the order of the Mamlatdar he in fact continued to be in possession and he was only dispossessed 6y the landlord sometime in 1954. Thereupon he approached the Collector and the Collector passed an order under Section 34 summarily evicting the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Revenue Tribunal which held against him and he has now come before us under Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. The powers at summary eviction are always drastic and it should be the duty of the Court to construe these powers as strictly as possible. Under Section 84 power is conferred upon the Collector summarily to evict any person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land.

Presumably there is no obligation upon the Collector before he makes the order to give a Judicial hearing to the party which might be affected by such an order. Therefore, we must be careful to see that such wide powers are confined strictly to the cases mentioned in Section 84. The power summarily to evict is not against any person unauthorisedly "occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land, but it is is only against such a person provided :the case against such a person falls under either Clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Section 84 which provides.

"(a) the transfer of which either by the act of parties or by the operation of law is invalid under the provisions of this Act,

(b) the management of which has been assumed under the said provisions, or

(c) to the use and occupation of which he is not entitled under the said provisions". Then we have what appears to us the qualifying provision, "and .the said provisions do not provide for the eviction of such persons", In our opinion, looking to the position of this expression in the section looking to the context of the section also it is clear that these words do not merely qualify Sub-clause (c) as contended by Mr. Paranjpe, but they quality all the three clauses. Therefore, in order that Section 84 should apply, three conditions are necessary.

In the first place, the person against whom the order is made must be unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land. The second condition is that the case must fall either under Clauses (a), (b) or (c) and the third condition is that the provisions of the Act do not provide for the eviction of such persons.

The Legislature was very careful in enacting this section and conferring this wide power upon the Collector to see that where a procedure for eviction was provided for in the Act itself that procedure had to be availed of and it was only in those rare cases where the tenant or the landlord had to proceed against a person unauthorisedly in possession and there he could not avail himself of the procedure under the Tenancy Act that he could approach the Collector and ask his assistance for summary eviction.

In this case it is not disputed by Mr. Paranjpe that the tenant could have proceeded under Section 29 (1). That section provides that a tenant or an agricultural labourer or artisan entitled to possession of any land or dwelling house under any of the provisions of the Act may apply in writing for such possession to the Mamlatdar and it is the case of the tenant that he is entitled to possession of this lend under the provisions of this Act.