The amendments under Section 88-E of the Tenancy Act are not retroactive, protecting previously established rights in tenancy disputes, while valid grounds for termination and future mesne profits were upheld.

1. The plaintiff is the trustee of Ramji Mandir at Baroda. The suit lands are the properties of the trust of Ramji Mandir. These lands are situated in the Panchmahals District. On April 26, 1958, the plaintiff obtained an exemption certificate in respect of the suit lands under S.88 - B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act , 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy Act"). Thereafter, he served upon the defendant a notice terminating his tenancy in respect of the suit lands. It was allied in that notice that the defendant was an annual tenant thereof. This notice was served under S.84 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and the termination of the tenancy became effective from March 31, 1961. On 31st December, 1960 the defendant sent to the plaintiff reply to the notice by which he denied the claim made by the plaintiff. On August 9, 1961, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of possession of suit lands and for the recovery of rents.

2. In defence, the defendant contended that he was a protected tenant in respect of the suit lands and that, therefore, S.4 - B of the Tenancy Act operated against the termination of his tenancy. The trial Court passed in favour of the plaintiff decree for possession and rent. The defendant appealed to the District Court. The learned Appellate Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff had filed cross - objections before the District Court claiming future mesne profits, which the trial Court had denied to him. They were dismissed.

3. That appellate decree is challenged by the defendant in this second appeal. The plaintiff has filed cross - objections in this second appeal claiming future mesne profits in respect of the suit lands.

4. Mr. Patel, appearing for the original defendant, has raised before me the following four contentions -
(1) On the basis of the plaintiff's case in the plaint the defendant is the annual tenant and his tenancy cannot be terminated hi view of the provisions of S.4 - B of the Tenancy Act.
(2) In view of the fact that the defendant is a protected tenant his tenancy cannot be terminated on account of the provisions of S.4 - B of the Tenancy Act.
(3) The notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant is illegal.
(4) S.88 - E of the Tenancy Act, as inserted by S.31 of the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act , 1969, read with the Schedule to the said Act bars the present suit lands.

5. On behalf of the plaintiff Mr. Karlekar has raised the contention that the Courts below were in error in rejecting the plaintiff's claim for future mesne profits in respect of the suit lands.

6. So far as the first contention raised by Mr. Patel is concerned, the plaintiff himself has stated in the plaint that the defendant was an annual tenant in respect of the suit lands. Exhibit 30 is the exemption certificate granted to plaintiff in respect of the suit lands under S.88 - B of the Tenancy Act. It is dated April 26, 1958. Now S.88 - B, so far as it is relevant for the purpose of the present case, provides as under : -
"Nothing in the foregoing provisions except S.3, S.4 - B, 8, 9, 9 - A, 9 - B. 9 - C, 10, 10 - A, 11, 13 and 27 and the provisions of Chapters VI an