NARAYAN GOPAL MHATRE Vs. SHANKAR SITARAM SONTAKKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question involved in this appeal is one of interpretation of the provisions of the Tenancy Act.

(2.) THE short facts leading to this appeal are as follows : The land in dispute is situated at Panchapakhadi, a village in Thana District. It belonged originally to one Ardeshir Meherwanji Daruwalla. The land was purchased by the plaintiff on February 13, 1956, under exh. 23. At the time of the purchase the father of the defendant -the appellant before us -was a tenant and after his death the defendant became the tenant. On March 22, 1956, the plaintiff gave notice to the defendant terminating his tenancy by the end of March 957, and followed it up by this suit for a declaration of his title and for possession, which he filed on July 30, 1957.

(3.) BECAUSE of this change in law the defendant contended that the sale of the suit land was invalid under the provisions of Section 64 of the Tenancy Act and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. His contention was that his father was a protected tenant under the 1939 Act and by the amendment of 1956 that protection was revived with the result as above. The other contentions regarding the notice and other matters are not relevant to the present purpose.