( 1 ) THE Tenancy Versus Employment is the central theme and heart of this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India involving applicability and interpretation of provisions of Secs. 2 (18), 4 and 70 (b) of the bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay Tenancy Act for short ). Whether the petitioners are the tenants or the servants in respect of three agricultural properties bearing Survey Nos. 3911/1, 3911/2 and 3909 situated in the sim of village Vadnagar, Taluka Kheralu, District Mehsana belonging to the respondent (disputed lands for short), is the sole but substantial issue which has come up for consideration and adjudication in this petition in the light of the aforesaid provisions of Bombay Tenancy Act.

( 2 ) WITH a view to appreciate the merits of this petition, a few material facts tracing shortly the long history of litigation which is pending in the high and long legal conduit pipe since more than two decades, obviously, would require narration.

( 3 ) THE petitioners by invoking the aids of the provisions of Sec. 70 (b) of the bombay Tenancy Act, claiming tenancy rights in respect of the disputed lands submitted an application before the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. , Kheralu on 27-2-1974 who by his order dated 13-12-1978 dismissed the application holding them to be the servants and not tenants. On an appeal against that order of the Mamlatdar, preferred by the petitioners before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) Mehsana, being Tenancy Appeal No. 223 of 1979, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal confirming the finding of the Mamlatdar. Being dissatisfied by the appellate authoritys order, the petitioners carried the matter in the Revision under Sec. 76 of the Bombay Tenancy Act before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (g. R. T. for short ). The revision came to be allowed by an order dated 8-1-1979, whereby, the g. R. T. remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar keeping the question of tenancy open.

( 4 ) THE respondent-owner of the disputed land in the meantime, had filed Regular civil Suit No. 100 of 1974 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Kheralu and obtained interim injunction against the petitioners. The petitioners filed miscellaneous appeal against the interim injunction order in the District Court, at mehsana, wherein the interim injunction order came to be quashed. Thus, the appeal was allowed after hearing the parties. The Civil Court had referred the issue of tenancy to the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. , Kheralu, for his decision under the Tenancy act as the petitioners inter-alia contended that they are protected tenants in respect of the disputed lands. The G. R. T. in remand order had also kept the question of tenancy open. The petitioners had, therefore, submitted an application to the concerned Mamlatdar who held that they are tenants of the disputed lands. Upon transfer application submitted by the respondent, the case came to be transferred from the Court of Mamlatdar and A. L. T. , Kheralu to the Court of Mamlatdar and a. L. T. , Mehsana. The Tribunal, at Mehsana, by its order dated 24-3-1986 held that petitioner are not the tenants of the disputed lands but are servants. During the pendency of the dispute before the Mamlatdar, stay was granted in favour of the petitioners. The respondent, thus, had been restrained from disturbing possession of the petitioners of the disputed lands. The District Court did not grant interim injunction against the petitioners in favour of the respondent-owner. Thus, interim orders of both the Courts were in favour of the petitioners. By virtue of the interim orders, the petitioners have been in possession of the disputed lands during the pendency of the proceedings.

( 5 ) THE petitioners challenged the order of the Mamlatdar, Mehsana, by filing an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Patan being Tenancy Appeal No. 45 of 1986. The Deputy Collector, by an order dated 18-8-1988 dismissed the appeal of the petitioners. The petit