( 1 ) THE plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground that the defendant had been in arrears of rent. The suit premises consists of a shop situate at village Alina in Kaira District. It appears that on 7th May 1964 plaintiffs father purchased from the defendant the entire building of which the suit premises formed a part. The transaction was evidenced by the sale deed Ex. 18. It appears that it was a sale with a condition to repurchase. On the same day the defendant executed rent-note in favour of the plaintiffs father in respect of the suit premises which constitute only a part of the property which plaintiffs father purchased. The rent which was fixed under the rent-note Ex. 19 was Rs. 135. 00 per year. It appears that the defendant paid rent for some time and thereafter became irregular in payment. Therefore the plaintiff served upon the defendant notice determining his tenancy in respect of the suit premises. The defendant replied to that notice and contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the only relationship which existed between them was that of the mortgagor and the mortgagee. The learned trial Judge upheld the plea raised by the defendant and dismissed the plaintiffs claim for possession. However he passed in favour of the plaintiff decree for a sum of Rs 135/- which was the amount of rent in arrears.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff appealed against that decree to the District Court. The learned Extra Assistant Judge who heard the appeal recorded the same finding and upheld the decree passed by the learned trial Judge. In that view of the matter he dismissed the appeal.

( 3 ) IT is that appellate decree which is challenged in this revision application.

( 4 ) THIS revision application came up for hearing before Mr. Justice A. D. Desai on 21st April 1978. It appeared to the learned Judge that there was a conflict between the decision of the High Court of Bombay in HARILAL BHAGWANJI V. SHASTRI HEMSHANKER UMIYASHANKER A. I. R. 1958 BOM. 8 AND A DECISION OF THIS COURT IN HEIRS OF LATE JATASHANKER FULCHAND MEHTA V. HEIRS OF LATE MAVJI TRIKAM 10 G. L. R 600. It may be noted that the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Harilals case (supra) was rendered by a learned single Judge of that Court. The decision of this Court in Jatashankers case (supra) was rendered by a Division Bench. However the reasoning given by the learned single Judge in Harilals case (supra) appealed to Mr. Justice A. D. Desai and therefore he referred this revision application to a larger Bench for reconsideration of the decision rendered by this Court in Jatashankers case (supra ).

( 5 ) BEFORE we deal with the merits of the case we may observe with very great respect to the learned referring Judge that so far as this Court is concerned the question has been finally settled. The decision in Harilals cave (supra) rendered by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Bombay (prior to bifurcation) was duly considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Jatashankers case (supra ). The Division Bench of this Court overruled it in part. Secondly the Division Bench of this Court while doing so followed two decisions of the Privy Council reported in SAIYID ABDULLAH KHAN V. SAIYID BASHARAT HUSAIN 40 INDIAN APPEALS 31 AND MIAN FEROZ SHAH V. SOHBAT KHAN 35 BOM. L. R. 877. The decisions rendered by the Privy Council are binding upon the High Courts. They were followed by B Division Bench of this Court in Jatashankers case (supra ). Having done so they overruled partly the decision of the learned single Judge in Harilals case (supra ). Therefore the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Jatashankers case (supra) could not be reopened for fresh consideration. Even if the Division Bench of this Court had not followed the two decisions of the Privy Council to which we have referred in view of the fact that the dec