The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the certificate under section 88B of the Tenancy Act and the legality of the quit notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

JUDGMENT

1. This is a second appeal by the original defendants who had successfully defended the suit of the respondent-trust for possession after termination of lease of the suit property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, but are aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the lower appellate court which has quashed and set aside the judgment and the order of the trial court and has decreed the suit.

2. The respondent is a trust duly registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act ('Trusts Act'). It is the owner of the suit property bearing survey no. 490 admeasuring 3 Acre 24 Guntha of village Nhavi, Taluka Yawal, District Jalgaon. The appellants (original defendants) were the tenants in the suit property. The respondent - trust had obtained a certificate from the Collector Jalgaon under section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act ('Tenancy Act') on 20-10-1960. As a result, some of the provisions of the Tenancy Act were not applicable to the suit property. The quit notice dated 28-06-1977 was served to the appellants terminating the tenancy with effect from 21-01-1978 or in the alternative with effect from 01-04-1978. On failure of the appellants to comply with the demand, the respondents filed the suit for possession and claimed past as well as future mesne profits.

3. The appellants filed written statement. They admitted ownership of the respondent-trust as also they being the tenants in the suit property. They also did not dispute issuance of certificate under section 88B of the Tenancy Act but contended that it was issued behind their back. They admitted receipt of the quit notice but contended that it was vague and was not valid.

4. The trial court framed necessary issues and at the end of the hearing, dismissed the suit holding that the certificate obtained by the respondent-trust under section 88B of the Tenancy Act was not valid. The quit notice was also not legal and also held that the decision in earlier suit R.C.S. no. 29/1974 operated as res judicata.

5. The respondent-trust preferred the appeal before the district court which allowed the appeal. It has held that the findings of the trial court regarding the certificate under section 88B of the Tenancy Act, legality of the quit notice and regarding res judicata were not sustainable. It has accordingly decreed the suit. Hence this second appeal.

6. The second appeal was admitted on 22-9-1992 on grounds no. 2, 3 and 4 from the appeal memo, which read as under :

?'2. Whether it is just and proper to ignore the important aspect of the matter that when the defendants the deemed purchaser of the suit land, on the Tillers day i.e. on 1-4-1957, the certificate granted under Section 88 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, in the year 1966, can be legal and valid ?

3. Whether a certificate under Section 88, can be issued to the trust, without issuing notice to the defendant, who were tenants, prior to the Tiller's day, and who became deemed purchasers on the Tillers day i.e. on 1-4-1957 ?

4. Whether it is just and proper to hold that the suit notice is legal, when admittedly, a notice is vague about the starting of tenancy year, and where it has been mentioned taht the tenancy of the suit land commences on 22nd January of each year and ends of 21sty January of the next year, and alternatively claimed that the tenancy commences on 1st April of each year, and ends on 31st March of the next year ?''

7. As can be appreciated, the only points that are now being agitated in this second appeal are circumscribed by these three substantial questions only. The question of res judicata is not a substantial question on which this appeal was admitted.

8. The learned advocate Mr. Choudhary for the appellants would vehemently submit that there was dearth of evidence to prove that the respondent-trust had obtained a certificate under section 88B of the Tenancy Act. Only a copy of it was produced before the trial court. Recently whe