JUDGMENT - (1) The facts which have given rise to this reference to the Full Bench, are as follows: The petitioners are the land holders of three lands of which the opponent no. 1, herein after referred to as the opponent, was a protected lessee under the provisions of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 (XXIV of 1951) , hereinafter referred to as the B. R. A. L. Act. The petitioners gave a notice terminating the tenancy of the opponent under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Act. The opponent then made an application to the Sub-Divisional Officer under sub-section (3) of section 9, in which he prayed that the notice should be declared to be invalid and inoperative. On this application, the Sub-Divisional Officer made an order on 12-11-1956 terminating the lease of the opponent with effect from 1-4-1957. Against this order, the opponent appealed to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, who set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional officer and held that the notice given by the petitioners was invalid. There was a second appeal by the petitioners to the Revenue Tribunal. On 13-2-1958 the Revenue Tribunal allowed the appeal of the petitioners, set aside the order made by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and resorted the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer.

(2) While these proceedings were pending, the Bombay Vidarbha Region Agricultural Tenants (Protection from Eviction and Amendment of Tenancy Laws) Act, 1957 (No. IX of 1958) was enacted by the Legislature. This Act came into force on 20th January 1958. Section 3 of this Act imposed a bar on the eviction of tenants for a period of two years. Section 4 provided that all proceedings pending at the commencement of the Act or which might be instituted during the period of the Act for the termination of the tenancy and eviction of a tenant shall be stayed on certain conditions referred to in the section. This Act was in force when the Revenue Tribunal made its order. While, therefore, restoring the order made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Revenue Tribunal directed that the proceedings for the termination of the tenancy and eviction of the applicant shall be stayed, if he deposited the rent of the lands due for the year ending 13st March 1958.

(3) This last Act, as well as the B. R. A. L. Act were repealed by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch area) Act, 1958 (No. XCIX of 1958), which came into force on 30-12-1958. I will refer to this Act as the Tenancy Act. On 20-2-1959 the petitioners made an application for ejection of the opponent under sub-section (1) of section 19 of the B. R. A. L. Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed this application on the ground that no such application could be maintained after the coming into force of the Tenancy Act. He was of the view that the only remedy open to the petitioners was to make an application to the Tahsildar under section 36 of the Tenancy Act. The order made by the Sub-Divisional Officer was confirmed in appeal by the Collector, and in second appeal by the Revenue Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present special civil application. The application came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. Having regard to the importance of the questions involved and also to the fact that the decision on questions arising in this case would govern a large number of cases, the Division Bench referred the following question for determination by a Full Bench.

"Whether the application of the landlord should be decided under section 19 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act and by the Sub-Divisional Officer or it should be decided by a Tahsildar under the new legislation in view of section 132 (3) of Act No. 99 of 1958?"

we have decided to modify the question for our consideration as follows:

"Whether an application made by a landholder under sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act , 1951 (XXIV of 1951), after the coming

Click Here to Read the rest of this document