( 1 ) THE synopsis of the case stated hereinabove makes it clear that peti- tioners who are very resourceful and intelligent have been able to thwart the earlier order Annexure G for almost two decades. Mr. J. S Shah the learned advocate for the petitioners however urged that the decision in proceedings under sec. 84 of the Act (Bombay Tenancy Act) is a summary decision which would not be final between the parties. I fail to understand how those proceedings under sec. 84 of the Bombay Tenancy Act could be said to be summary proceedings. The fact that sec. 84 provides for summary eviction Does not make the proceedings summary proceedings reserving the liberty to the party losing in those proceedings to start de novo the dispute. The proceedings under sec. 84 are fully judicial pro- ceedings. If the petitioners claimed title because of operation of sec. 32 of the Bombay Tenancy Act they could have certainly raised that defence is those proceedings. If they claimed their tenancy rights it was perfectly open to them to plead the same and had they done so the Prant Officer was bound to make a reference to the Mamlatdar under sec. 70 (b) of the Bombay Tenancy Act Nothing o