Where a notice under Section 9(1) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 is served by the landlord upon the tenant and the tenant challenges the notice under Section 9(3) of the Act, resulting in an appropriate order being passed by the Revenue Officer under Section 9(4) of the Act, a further order under Section 8(1)(g) of the Act is not necessary for the effective termination of the lease.

TULZAPURKAR, J. :- This matter has been referred to a Division Bench by Mr. Justice Masodkar since he felt that there was an apparent conflict between a decision delivered by Mr. Justice Padhye on 20th/21st September, 1966, in Madhav v. Shripat, (Special Civil Appln. No. 929 of 1965) (Bom) and the view taken by Mr. Justice Deshmukh in Baburao v. Shionath, (1967 Mah LJ 670), and the petition involved a question as to what would be the correct position applicable to this class of cases where a protected tenant had taken proceedings under Section 9 (3) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Berar Act 1951) to challenge the notice served upon him by his landlord under Section 9 (1) of the said Act.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition may be stated. The respondent is a landlady of certain field, bearing survey number 3, admeasuring 29 acres 19 gunthas, situated at mouza Karak, in tahsil Yeotmal. The petitioner has been a tenant of this land since 1956 onwards and admittedly was a protected lessee within the meaning of that expression as given in the Berar Act 1951. The respondent landlady served a notice dated 14th December, 1957 on the petitioner-tenant under Section 9 (1) of the said Act terminating the letter's tenancy in respect t of the aforesaid land on the ground that she needed the land for personal cultivation. Under Section 9 (3) of the said Act, an application was made by the petitioner-tenant before the Revenue Officer (Sub-Divisional Officer, Yeotmal) challenging the aforesaid notice on the ground that the notice was not bona fide and that the same should be declared to be of no effect. It was the case of the petitioner-tenant that the landlady did not have the means to cultivate the land personally and she was also in possession of more than 50 acres of land, and therefore, the notice was not bona fide. The Sub-Divisional Officer held an enquiry and on the material placed before him came to the conclusion that the holding of the landlady was not as suggested by the petitioner-tenant, that she was in a position to cultivate the fields and had the intention to cultivate the land at home. By his order dated 30th September 1958 passed under Section 9 (4) of the Berar Act 1951 he held that the notice given by the landlady to the petitioner-tenant was bona fide and he rejected the petitioner's application.

3. The petitioner-tenant carried the matter in appeal to the Deputy Coltector, but that appeal was dismissed on 25th February, 1959. The respondent then filed an application under Section 19 (1) of the Berar Act 1951 for possession of the land on 24th April, 1960. It appears that in the meantime the new Bombay Tenancy (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act 1958) had come into force on 30th December, 1958 by which the Berar Act 1951 was repealed. The Naib Tahsildar to whom the respondent's application was transferred for disposal dismissed the same on 8th December, 1960, on the ground that in view of the repeal of the Berar Act 1951 and in view of the provisions of Section 132 (3) (a) of the Tenancy Act 1958, the provisions of the new Act were applicable and the provisions of Section 38 of that Act had not been complied with by the respondent. Against the dismissal of her application oh 8th December, 1960, the respondent preferred an appeal, but that appeal was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 10th October, 1961. These orders passed by the Naib Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer remained unchallenged at the hands of the respondent as no further proceedings were taken by her by way of revision to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.

4. In 1965, the respondent filed a suit in Civil Court, being Civil Suit No. 4 of 1965, for possession of the field against the petitioner-tenant on the ground that she was entitled to recover possession as the tenancy of the petitioner-tenant had been duly terminated by reason of