( 1 ) TWO questions arise for decision by this Full Bench. The first is whether a decision given by an appellate authority under subsection (5) of section 88c of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereafter called the Act) is or is not subject to revision under section 76 of the Act by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The second is whether total income of the petitioner for disposing of his application for an exemption certificate made under sub-section (2) of section 88c of the Act is to be computed under the circumstances of the case from the year beginning from 1st April 1956 and ending with 31st March 1957 or the year beginning from 1st September 1958 and ending with 31st August 1959.

( 2 ) AT first it will be convenient to mention a few facts which led up to the writ petition in which the questions arise for decision. Petitioner Madhaji Lakhiram is the owner of a land bearing survey No. 610 admeasuring 9 acres 26 gunthas situated in the village Nayta. Opponent No. 1 Mashrubhai Mahadevbhai Rabari (hereafter called the opponent simpliciter) is the tenant of the land. Petitioner filed before the Mamlatdar Taluka Patan Tenancy Suit No. 375 of 1957 under section 29 sub-section (2) read with section 31 of the Act to recover possession of the land on the allegations that he had duly terminated the tenancy and that he required the land for personal cultivation. The suit was dismissed on 1st November 1957 by the Tenancy Mahalkari. Petitioner preferred to the Prant Officer Patan Appeal No. T. N. C. A. P. L. 133 of 1957. The appeal was dismissed on 5th July 1958. A revision petition was presented to the Bombay Revenue Tribunal and it was dismissed by it on 31st August 1959 Whilst these proceedings were pending petitioner started a second set and this writ petition is directed against two orders passed in the course of this second set of proceedings. In 1958 petitioner filed before the Additional Mamlatdar Patan an application No. 393 under sub-section (2) of section 88c of the Act for an exemption certificate on the allegations that his estate did not exceed an economic holding and that his total annual income did not exceed Rs. 1 500 That application was dismissed by the Additional Mamlatdar by his order dated 6th December 1958 He found that the total annual income of the petitioner exceeded Rs. 1 500 This income was calculated on the basis that the relevant year began on the 1st April 1956 and ended on the 31st March 1957. Petitioner preferred to the Additional Deputy Collector (Appeals) Mehsana Appeal No. 250 of 1959. The appeal was allowed by him by his order dated 24th April 1959. Before doing this that officer had allowed petitioner to lead additional evidence in regard to his total annual income; but he had not allowed the opponent opportunity to rebut that additional evidence. The officer found that the total annual income of petitioner during the year 1956-57 was less than Rs. 1 500 and that his total estate was less than an economic holding. Prom the above order opponent preferred a revision application being No. T. E. N. A. A. 898 of 1959 to the Bombay Revenue Tribunal. Before the Tribunal petitioner raised the question as to the year with reference to which his total annual income was to be calculated. The Tribunal held that the relevant year was 1956-57. However the learned Advocate for petitioner conceded before the Tribunal that in view of the fact that opponent had not been given an opportunity to rebut the additional evidence led by petitioner and permitted by the appellate authority the appeal should be remanded. Accordingly the Bombay Revenue Tribunal set aside the order dated 24th April 1959 of the Additional Deputy Collector on 7-11-59 and remanded the appeal directing that it should be decided in the light of its judgment and in accordance with law after the opponent was given an opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence. Accordingly the matter went before the Additional Deputy Collec