Oza, J.

1. This petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution Las been filed by the petitioner against the order dated the 20th February 1970 passed by the Board of Revenue rejecting a revision petition filed by the petitioner.

2. It is alleged that one Chainsingh, the guardian of minor non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 who are both sisters, gave on 20th March 1951 a notice under section 319 of the Quanoon Mal, Gwalior, to the petitioner for his ejectment from the suit lands on the ground that the lands were required for personal cultivation as the non applicants Nos. 1 and 2 had no other and in their possession. Admittedly, the agricultural lands are in villages Salampur, Tahsil and district Shajapur, and formed part of Jamindari Village in the erstwhile Gwalior State. The petitioner contested the notice and, therefore, a suit under section 319 of the Quanoon Mal, Gwalior, was filed. This suit, after remand from the Additional Commissioner, bhopal, for further enquiry, was decreed by the Tahsil Court on 27th July 1966. This order of the Tahsil Court was confirmed on appeal by the Sub Divisional Officer. On second appeal, the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal, again remanded the case for further enquiry to the Tahsil. This remand was made with a direction to enquire whether the non-applicants had any interest in the lands situated in village Khokari, Tahsil Udaipura of the erstwhile Bhopal State, which has been mutated in the name of Chainsingh. It was also directed that an enquiry should be made into the question whether the petitioner acquired the rights of an occupancy tenant on account of his possession over the suit lands on 2nd October 1959 when the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, came into force. After further enquiry, the Tahsil again decreed the suit of the plaintiff non-applicants and that order was upheld in appeal. Ultimately, the petitioner went up in revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board dismissed the revision petition by the impugned order.

3. It was contended by Shri A. M. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was in possession of the land as a subtenant, and on the date of vesting he became a sub-tenant of a Pakka tenant and consequently the proceedings for the petitioner's eviction under the Quanoon Mal, Gwalior, could not proceed against him. Learned counsel also contended that on 2nd October 1959, when the M. P. Land Revenue Code came into force, the petitioner being in possession as a sub-tenant acquired the rights of an occupancy tenant and, therefore, he could not be evicted.

4. It was contended on behalf of the non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 that notice under section 319 of the Quanoon Mal, Gwalior, was given long before the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951, came into force. Admittedly at that time the parties were governed by Quanoon Mal, Gwalior, and the suit for possession under section 319 of the Quanoon Mal, Gwalior, was filed against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2, by coming into force of the M. B. Zamindari Abolition Act the position was not altered as even when the M. B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950, came into force the provisions of section 319 Quanoon Mal, Gwalior, were not repealed, and, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner were continued under the provisions of section 319 of Quanoon Mal, Gwalior. Learned counsel also contended that after the notice of termination of the lease the petitioner could only be treated as a trespasser and there was no Protection Act to protect the sub-tenants in Zamindari lands as the provisions of the Quanoon Mal, Gwalior, were applicable to these areas. According to the learned counsel, in these circumstances even by coming into force of the M. P. Land Revenue Code no rights of an occupancy tenant were conferred on the petitioner.

5. As regards the question whether the suit under section 319 of the Quanoon Mal, Gwalior, was maintainable against t