( 1 ) THIS special civil application has been preferred to a larger Bench for resolving the controversy arising out of conflicting views expressed by M. P. Thakkar. J. in BHAILALBHAI GOVINDBHAI V. BAI NANDUBHA WD/o GULABSING MOHANSING REPORTED IN 18 G. L. R. 901 AND N. H. BHATT J. IN NATHUBHAI GANDABHAI V. BHAGUBHAI ICHUBHAI REPORTED IN 21 G. L. R. 366 regarding the interpretation of sec. 32 (1b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act

( 2 ) M. P. Thakkar J. has taken the view that the provisions of this section enure for the benefit of heirs of a deceased tenant and that such heirs can apply under sec. 32 (1b) for necessary reliefs; while N. H. Bhatt 1 has taken a contrary view.

( 3 ) THIS petition earlier reached final hearing before B. K. Mehta J. who was not inclined to agree with the view expressed by N. 11. Bhatt J. and hence B. K Mehta J. directed the matter to be placed before the learned Chief Justice for referring it to a larger Bench and that is how this matter has been placed before us for final decision.

( 4 ) IT may be stated at this stage that the present proceedings have been referred to us for deciding the only question whether benefit of sec. 32 (1b) of the Tenancy Act is available to the heirs of a deceased tenant dying subsequent to dispossession.

( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the nature of the controversy posed for our decision it is necessary to have a look at certain relevant facts leading to the present proceedings. The father of the present petitioner Motibhai was originally the tenant of agricultural land bearing survey No. 2773/1 admesauring acre-1 gunthas 17 situated at village Ode in Anand taluka of Kheda district. The petitioner applied under sec. 32 (1b) of the Tenancy Act to the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. Anand for being granted necessary relief under the said provision on the ground that his father was the tenant of the land on 15-6-1955 and had continued in possession of the said land thereafter and that by mutation entry No. 10874 sanctioned on 18-11-1956 the said piece of land was mutated from the name of the petitioners father to that of the respondent landlord. The petitioners father died somewhere in 1966. The contention of the petitioner in his application under sec. 32 (1b) of the Tenancy Act which was made before the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. on 22/12/1967 was that the petitioner was entitled to get purchase price fixed for the land in question as respondent landlord had illegally dispossessed the tenant and the land was in possession of the respondent and consequently all the requirements of sec. 32 (1b) were complied with in the case.

( 6 ) THE respondent landlord appeared in the said proceedings before the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. Anand. Evidence of the parties was recorded by the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. Anand and he held that the petitioner was a tenant of the land. On detailed consideration of the evidence oral as well as documentary adduced before him he granted necessary reliefs to the petitioner under sec. 32 (1b) of the Tenancy Act. The Mamlatdar and A. L. T. found that the petitioners father was dispossessed between two terminal dates prescribed under sec. 2 (1b) of the Tenancy Act viz. 15 and 3-3-1973. He further found with regard to entry No. 9915 in village form No. VII-XII that the name of the petitioners father was entered as a tenant and it was mutated by entry No. 10874 dated 5 He also found from the two agreements of S. Y. 20256 dated 8 that the father of the petitioner was cultivating the land till that year. He also found that the petitioners father was on the land on the basis of the writing of S. Y. 2010 corresponding to year 1954 wherein the respondent had acknowledged and admitted that the father of the petitioner was cultivating the land and attending to the mango trees standing thereon. The A. L. T. therefore held that the petitioner was entitled to be declared a deemed purchaser of the land and h