JUDGMENT :

H.K. Rathod, J.

Heard learned advocate Mr. S.R. Divetia on behalf of appellants and learned advocate Mr. G.M. Joshi for respondents in each appeal.

2. These four appeals involve one question of law as to whether notice served by plaintiffs to respondents - tenants under Section 84 of Bombay Land Revenue Code while terminating tenancy of agricultural lands giving three months' time is legal and valid or not and whether suit notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Properties Act is necessary in spite of two reported judgments as relied by learned advocate Mr. S.R. Divetia, of this Court; one is in case of Arya Satyadev Dhanjibhai & Anr. v. Bhailalbhai Ishwarbhai, reported in 1972 (13) GLR 398 and another in case of Motibhai Nathabhai v. Ramchandra Martandray Vahivatdar Trustee of Ramji Mandir, Baroda, reported in 1974 (15) GLR 18 and further question was whether lower Courts were right in law in following reported judgment of Bombay High Court in case of Manekji Edulji Mistry v. Maneksha Ardeshir Irani, reported in 1972 Vol. LXXV BLR 609.

3. Learned advocate Mr. S.R. Divetia in his submissions relying upon two decisions of this Court, as referred above, submitted that notice issued by plaintiffs to respondents - tenants while terminating tenancy giving three months' time under Section 84 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (for short "the Code") is legal and valid and therefore, finding given by both below Courts are contrary to binding decision of this Court. He further submitted that both below Courts have committed error of law in relying upon judgment of Division Bench of Bombay High Court, as referred above. He emphasized that out of two decisions, one is Division Bench of this Court and another is of learned Single Judge of this Court where this very question has been examined and that decision is not followed which is binding to subordinate Courts. Therefore, according to his submissions, these four appeals are required to be allowed while setting side judgment and decree passed by below Courts.

4. Learned advocate Mr. G.M. Joshi for respondents submitted that aforesaid both decisions of this Court have been rightly considered and distinguished by below Courts, and in facts of this case, provisions of Sections 83 and 84 of Code is ceased to be applied means not applicable because tenancy in respect to agricultural lands, provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short "the Tenancy Act") is applicable. He also submitted that in such circumstances, the finding given by below Courts that notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Properties Act must have to be given which requires for terminating tenancy for a period of six months notice, which was undisputedly not given. Therefore, according to his submissions, decision given by both below Courts is perfectly justified considering amended provisions of 1 August, 1956 in Bombay Land Revenue Code. He also submitted that decision of Bombay High Court is squarely covered the issue which has been rightly relied by below Courts and for that, no error is committed.

5. I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates and also perused order passed by trial Court deciding preliminary issue in Regular Civil Suit No. 168/78 Exh. 49, Regular Civil Suit No. 16/80 Exh.10, Regular Civil Suit No. 154/80 Exh.8 and Regular Civil Suit No. 115/80 Exh. 8 dated 27.2.1981 and also perused judgment and order passed by appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal Nos. 106 to 109.1981, decided on 30.6.1983. That four appeals preferred by original plaintiffs are dismissed with costs while confirming judgment and decree passed by trial Court.

6. Brief facts leading to present case are that present appellant No.1 is a registered education Trust. The appellant Nos. 2 to 6 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Appeal No. 106 of 1981 are trustees of above Trust, who had filed afo