( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the trustee of Ramji Mandir at Baroda. The suit lands are the properties of the trust of Ramji Mandir. These lands are situated in the Panchmahals District. On April 26 1958 the plaintiff obtained an exemption certificate in respect of the suit lands under sec. 88b of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act ). Thereafter he served upon the defendant a notice terminating his tenancy in respect of the suit lands. It was alleged in that notice that the defendant was an annual tenant thereof. This notice was served under sec84 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and the termination of the tenancy became effective from March 31 1961 On 31st December 1960 the defendant sent to the plaintiff reply to the notice by which he denied the claim made by the plaintiff. On August 9 1961 the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of possession of suit lands and for the recovery of rents.

( 2 ) IN defence the defendant contended that he was a protected tenant in respect of the suit lands and that therefore sec. 4b of the Tenancy Act operated against the termination of his tenancy. The trial Court passed in favour of the plaintiff decree for possession and rent. The defendant appealed to the District Court. The learned Appellate Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff had filed cross-objections before the District Court claiming future mesne profits which the trial Court had denied to him. They were dismissed.

( 3 ) THAT appellate decree is challenged by the defendant in this second appeal. The plaintiff has filed cross-objections in this second appeal claiming future mesne profits in respect of the suit lands.

( 4 ) MR. Patel appearing for the original defendant has raised before me the following four contentions (1) On the basis of the plaintiffs case in the plaint the defendant is the annual tenant and his tenancy cannot be terminated in view of the provisions of sec. 4s of the Tenancy Act. (2) In view of the fact that the defendant is a protected tenant his tenancy cannot be terminated on account of the provisions of sec. 4b of the Tenancy Act. (3) The notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant is illegal. (4) Sec. 88e of the Tenancy Act as inserted by sec. 31 of the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act 1969 read with the Schedule to the said Act bars the present suit.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff Mr. Karlekar has raised the contention that the Courts below were in error in rejecting the plaintiffs claim for future mesne profits in respect of the suit lands.

( 6 ) SO far as the first contention raised by Mr. Patel is concerned the plaintiff himself has stated in the plaint that the defendant was an annual tenant in respect of the suit lands. Ex. 30 is the exemption certificate granted to the plaintiff in respect of the suit lands under sec. 88b of the Tenancy Act. It is dated April 20 1958 Now sec. 88b so far as it is relevant for the purpose of the present case provides as under:-NOTHING in the foregoing provisions except secs. 3 4 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 11 13 and 27 and the provisions of Chapters VI and VII in so far as the provisions of the said Chapters are applicable to any of the matters referred to in the sections mentioned above shall apply (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . (b) to lands which are the property of a trust. . . . . . . . . . . . or an institution for public religious worship; (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . Provided that (i) such trust is or is deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 and (ii) the entire income of such lands is appropriated for the purposes of such trust. (2) For the purposes of this section a certificate granted by the Collector after holding an inquiry that the conditions in the proviso to sub-sec. (1) are satisfied by any trust shall be conclusive evidence in that behalf. It has not been disputed before me that the two requirements of the proviso to sub-sec. (i)