1. This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned Single Judge as he felt that a question of law of some importance was involved in this appeal.

2. Regular Civil Suit No. 488 of 1966 was filed in the Court of the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Poona, by the present respondent seeking possession of property situated within the municipal limits of the Poona Corporation. She sought possession of Survey No. 162 Hissa Nos. 1 and 2 admeasuring 8 acres 26 gunthas which was in the possession of one Kisan from about 1935 as tenant. On May 5, 1955 Kisan died leaving behind him his widow, the appellant No.1 and two sons Vithal and Raghunath, appellants Nos. 2 and 3. Plaintiff claimed possession on the ground that the tenancy was terminated by her by Exh. 117 dated September 13, 1965 effective from March 31, 1966. It was the case of the plaintiff that since the lands were situated within the limits of Poona Municipal Corporation and were within the Industrial Zone, the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, did not apply to these lands.

3. By their written statement, Exh. 9, the defendants, the present appellants, took up inter alia the following contentions: (1) that the lands were governed by the Bombay Tenancy Act, (2) that Kisan was a protected tenant and this right was inherited by the present appellants upon the death of Kisan, (3) that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to deal with any of the matters in issue since the case was governed by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, as amended from time to time, (4) that there was no effective termination in fact and (5) that the plaintiff had waived her right under the notice as she had accepted rent after giving notice and even after the filing of the suit.

4. The trial Court framed several issues and having held the issues in favour of the plaintiff decreed the plaintiffs suit. The defendants went in appeal and the appeal court partially allowed the appeal by passing a conditional decree for possession. On the contentions raised by the defendants the findings were against them. Against this order partially allowing the appeal the defendants have filed this second appeal and the plaintiff has filed cross-objections regarding the conditional nature of the decree.

5. Mr.Lalit appearing for the appellants contended that in this case an important question of law was involved regarding the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. A reference was made by Mr.Lalit to the various provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act to contend that whenever a question arose requiring the decision of a contention whether a party to the suit was entitled to the benefit of the Bombay Tenancy Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was ousted. His further contention was that a Tenancy forum alone had the jurisdiction to decide any dispute arising between the parties, one of whom claimed the status of a tenant under the Bombay Tenancy Act.

6. The argument on behalf of the plaintiff which was accepted by both the Courts was that no provision of the Tenancy Act applies in the instant case on facts. Reliance was placed for this purpose by both the Courts upon Section 88 (1) (b) of the Bombay Tenancy Act which is as follows :-

""Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Act shall apply-

(b) to any area which the State Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify as being reserved for non-agricultural or industrial development;""

On 1-8-1956 a notification R. D. No. TNC 5156/101/65 F, was issued by Government reserving the following areas for non-agricultural and industrial development : ""Areas within the limits of (1) Greater Bombay, (2) the Municipal Corporation of the Cities of Poona and Ahmedabad and (3) the Municipal boroughs of Thana, Kalyan, Surat, Sholapur and Hubli."" By subsequent notifications alterations were effected but they did not affect the are within the Municipal Corpora