The expression "other land" in Section 34 (2) (a) of the Tenancy Act is restricted to land in the State of Bombay and does not include land situated outside the State of Bombay.

1. A rather interesting question arises as to the application of the Tenancy Act to lands situated outside the State of Bombay. The petitioner, who is the landlord, applied for possession of the land in the possession of his tenant-opponent No. 1 on the ground of bona fide requirement for Personal cultivation. The Mamlatdar held that the landlord had failed to prove his bona fide requirement and dismissed his application. The Prant Officer also dismissed the application but on a different ground. The view taken by the Prant Officer was that as a landlord personally cultivated land more than fifty acres, he was not entitled to Possession under Section 34 (2) (a) of the Tenancy Act end that view of the Prant Officer was confirmed by the Tribunal.

2. The area personally cultivated by the landlord, according to the finding of the Prant Officer and the Tribunal, is 55 acres and 29 gunthas and out of these 10 acres and 12 gunthas are lands situated in Saurashtra outside the State of Bombay. If 10 acres and 12 gunthas are excluded as being lands outside the State of Bombay, then the landlord does not come within the mischief of Section 34 (2) (a) and the decision of the Tribunal on this Point cannot be maintained. Therefore, the question that arises for our determination is whether in Section 34 (2) (a): "to terminate the tenancy of a protected tenant, if the landlord at the date on which the notice is given or at the date on which the notice expires has been cultivating Personal-ly other land fifty acres or more in area", the expression "other land" is restricted to land in the State of Bombay or would include land situated outside the State of Bombay or anywhere in the world. Mr. Limayes contention is that the object of the Legislature was two-fold. The Legislature was of the opinion that a landlord cannot properly cultivate land, the area of which is more than fifty acres and, therefore, wherever the land is situated, that fact has to be taken into consideration, and the other aspect of the matter, according to Mr. Limaye, is that the Legislature thought that a tenant should not he deprived of his holding if the landlord had already fifty acres which he was personally cultivating. Again, according to Mr. Limaye, from this point of view it was immaterial whether the land was situated in the State of Bombay or outside. There are various difficulties in the way of accepting Mr. Limayes contention. The ordinary principle of construction is that a Legislature is dealing with the subject-matter situated within its own territorial Jurisdiction. The Legislature is not concerned with improving the lot of any person out-side the State of Bombay; nor is it conversant with conditions Prevailing outside the State. The tenant for whose benefit the legislation is put on the statute book and who has been defined and the landlord who has been correspondingly defined are tenant and landlord in the State of Bombay. It cannot be gainsaid that the Legislature was only dealing with tenant and landlord within the State of Bombay and not tenant and landlord outside the State of Bombay, and when the Legislature in Section 34 (2) (a) laid down the limit of fifty acres, It laid down that limit from the point of view of conditions prevailing in the State of Bombay, Obviously, the view was that less than fifty acres would not be an economic holding and, therefore, the landlord was Permitted to hold up to fifty acres and if he wanted more from his tenant, he was disentitled. Again, Section 36 (1) permits the Government to reduce the limit of fifty acres and this reduction cannot be from the point of view of conditions prevailing outside the State of Bombay but it could only be from the point of view of conditions prevailing in the State of Bombay." Therefore, the Legislature was indifferent to what the landlords holding was outside the State of Bombay. If his holding was fifty acres, then in the view of the Legislature that was a sufficient holding a