( 1 ) THE short question of law as to interpretation of sections 29 and 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Tenancy Act) arises in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the following facts and circumstances.

( 2 ) THE petitioner Bhikhusha Bhadrashal Fakir purchased the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 416 admeasuring 1 Acre-25 Gunthas at village Sayma Taluka Cambay District Kaira by a registered sale deed on December 23 1970 from the respondent No. 2 who was the original landlord in respect of the said land. The respondent No. 1 Dharamshibhai Rayabhai Patel was the tenant in respect of the aforesaid land and in the proceedings under section 32pp of the Bombay Tenancy Act i. e. Case No. 921 of 1975 the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. Khambhat made a declaration that the respondent No. 1 was the protected tenant. It is not in dispute that the said order of the A. L. T. dated September 30 1975 stood concluded as no appeal nor revision challenging the said order was ever preferred. The Mamlatdar/a. L. T. Khambhat also held that the landlord had dispossessed the respondent No. 1 - tenant from the land in question without any order of the Court or without initiating any proceedings under section 29 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. It was therefore finally concluded that the respondent No. 1 was the protected tenant in respect of the said land. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 2 - landlord did not make any application under section 29 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy Act for possession of the agricultural land in dispute nor the possession of the land was surrendered to the Collector. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 made an application under Sec. 84 of the Bombay Tenancy Act contending that the petitioner herein was unauthorisedly occupying or was wrongfully in possession of the said land and therefore he should be summarily evicted and possession of the land be restored to the respondent No. 1 - tenant. The said application was made to the Assistant Collector Petlad. The Assistant Collector Petlad by his judgment and order dated March 22 1982 held that the respondent No. 1 was completely cultivating the said land on 1. 4. 1957 and he was unlawfully dispossessed from the said land by the landlord and thereafter he had transferred the land to the petitioner by way of sale. The petitioner was thus held to be unlawful transfer of the said land and the Assistant Collector Petlad ordered to evict him summarily from the lands in question.

( 3 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Assistant Collector Petlad preferred Revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 697/82 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal who by the impugned judgment and order dated July 14 1983 dismissed the revision application. The petitioner has challenged the said judgment and order rendered by the Tribunal.

( 4 ) MR. Arvind J Patel the learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal did not appreciate the fact the section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy Act would not apply to the facts of the case for the reasons that the petitioner was the purchaser and the respondent No. 1 claimed to be tenant who had lost his possession and therefore he should have either pursued his remedy under section 29 or under section 32 (1b) of the Bombay Tenancy Act and if those remedies are available to him the provisions of section 84c of the Bombay Tenancy Act would not be applicable and therefore the proceedings under section 84 would clearly be barred and without jurisdiction. In the submission of Mr. Patel the authorities below having failed to appreciate this point which will go to the root of the case the impugned judgment and order is without jurisdiction and void. In order to appreciate the contention raised by Mr. Patel it would be necessary to refer to sections 29 32 and 84 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The relevant provisions of the said sections