Shivdayal, J.-

1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner was an occupancy tenant and the respondents were his sub-lessees by virtue of Pattas dated January 7, 1927, granted to them by his father, Bhaiyalal, for a period of 11 years.

2. On October, 25 1050, the petitioner instituted a suit for ejectment under the M. B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, No. 66 of 1950, (hereinafter called the Tenancy Act). On October 133 1953, the Tahsil Court passed a decree for ejectment in favour of (he petitioner. The respondents appealed but the S. D. O. dismissed it on August 24, 1960. They went in second appeal before the Revenue Commissioner. .On November 28, 1960, that appeal was allowed, following the decision in Raghunath Singh Vs. Gangabai, 1960 JLJ 998. It was held that the respondents, being sub-lessees, were protected by the statute. The petitioner applied in revision to the Board of Revenue but he did not succeed. Now, he invokes the powers of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

3. On October 19, 1955. had come into force the M. B. Ryotwari Sub-lessees Protection Act, No. 29 of 1955 (hereinafter called the Protection Act) and on October 2, 1959, had came into force the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, (hereinafter called the Land Revenue Code).

4. The only question for determination, which was pressed before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have wrongly been held to be immune from eviction as a combined effect of the provisions contained in the Protection Act and the' Land Revenue Code. It was also urged that the decision in Reghunath Singh Vs. Gangabai (supra) did not lay dawn the correct law.

5. The M. B, Tenancy Act of 1950 permitted grant of sub-leases by specified classes of persons suffering under certain disabilities; it also recognised sub-leases which had been effected properly and legally prior to the commencement of that Act. Those provisions were contained in sections 74 and 75 of that Act. A sub-lease could be determined as provided in those sections, whereafter, possession was to revert to the lessor.

6. It is well known that the legislature endeavoured to abolish the rights or intermediaries and to create direct relationship of landlord and tenant between the State arid the tiller of the soil. A sub-lessee, being the actual tiller, was contemplated to be retrained undisturbed. It appears that the legislature without finally making up its mind as to the future status of the sub-lessees, who continued as such even after the abolition of Zamindaris and Jagirs, as an ad interim step, enacted the Protection Act of 1955. This was a temporary measure. It was provided in section 3 of that Act that no suit could be instituted for eviction of a sub-lessee other than one under section 74 of the M. B. Tenancy Act of 1950, and under section 4 all pending suits for ejectment of sub-lessees from Ryotwari land were stayed. Eventually, the Legislature decided to confer the status of an occupancy tenant on the sub-lessee and this was manifested in section 185 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code of 1959, which came into force on October 2, 1959. On that date, the present case was pending before the S. D. O. in appeal.

7. It is clear enough from the scheme of section 185 of the Land Revenue Code that the sub-lessees on whom occupancy rights were conferred were described with the same nomenclature which was employed in each of the various regions comprising the new State of Madhya Pradesh under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. The present case is from Madhya Bharat region and sub-clause (b) of clause (ii) of sub-section (I) applies;

8. In order that a sub-lessee may claim the conferral of occupancy tenancy under S. 185 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code 1959 two conditions must be satisfied :

(1) That he was a Ryotwari sub-lessee as defined in the Protection Act of 1955.

(2) The sub-lease continued to be in force on the date of the commencement of th