( 1 ) SURVEY No. 3 admeasuring approximately 7. 51 acres situate in the Ahmedabad Cantonment area is undisputedly owned by the Union Government. The said land was leased to the petitioner from time to time since 1937. The last of such leases was for a period of five years commencing from June 1 1968 The said lease expired on May 31 1973 On May 29 1973 the Assistant Military Estates Officer the first respondent herein issued a notice which was served upon the petitioner on May 30 1973 calling upon him to handover vacant possession of the leased land on the date of the expiry of the lease. The petitioner has thereupon filed the present petition challenging the said notice.

( 2 ) TWO points were urged at the hearing of the petition. First that the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) applied to the land in question and that the petitioner was a tenant entitled to the protection of the said Act and that as such he could not be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of the Tenancy Act. Secondly that under the cover of the impugned notice the first respondent was seeking to take law into his own hands and intending to evict the petitioner otherwise than in due course of law and that such an action was illegal and ultra vires.

( 3 ) IT will be convenient to first dispose of the second contention urged on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K. G. Vakharia learned advocate appearing on behalf of the first respondent stated to the Court that the impugned notice was no more than a request to the petitioner to hand over vacant possession on the termination of the lease and that the respondents did not intend to dispossess the petitioner otherwise than in due course of law. In view of this clear statement made on behalf of the first respondent the second contention based on an apprehension that the petitioner would be forcibly dispossessed otherwise than in accordance with law does not survive.

( 4 ) THE validity of the first contention depends upon the true interpretation of sec. 88 of the Tenancy Act. Sec. 88 in so far as it is relevant for the purposes of this case reads as under:88 (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-sec (2) nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Act shall apply- (a) to lands belonging to or held on lease from the Government; (aa) to lands held or leased by a local authority; (b) to any area which the State Government may from time to time by noti- fication in the Official Gazette specify as being reserved for non-agricultural or industrial development:. . . . . . . . . . THERE are two provisos to clause (b) which are not relevant and they need not be read. Similarly the other clauses and sub-sections of sec. 88 (except sub-sec. 2) are also not relevant and they need not be cited. Sub- sec. (2) of sec. 88 reads as under : (2) If any land held on lease from Government or any part thereof- (i) is held at the commencement of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Gujarat Amendment) Act 1960 by a person under a sub-lease from the lessee and is cultivated personally by such person or (ii) is sub-leased after the commencement of the Bombay Tenancy and Agri- cultural Lands (Gujarat Amendment) Act 1960 by the lessee to any person for cultivation and such sub-leasing of the land or part thereof is authorised in accordance with the terms of the lease then all the provisions of this Act except secs. 32 to 32r (both inclusive) and sec. 43 shall notwithstanding anything contained in such lease apply to the land or as the case may be the part thereof held under such sub-lease as if the person holding it under such sub-lease were a tenant within the meaning of sec. 4 of this Act and lessee were the landlord:. . . . . . . ON a bare reading of the relevant provisions of sec. 83 it is clear that except in certain cases of sub-leases dealt with in sub-sec. (2) secs. 1 to 87 of the Tenancy Act do not apply inter alia to lands belonging t