JUDGMENT : R.S. Bachawat, J. 1. Mr. Chhatrapati, for the appellants, submits that the decision of the Prant Officer in Tenancy Appeal No. 83 of 1955 that the land in question was held on lease for the benefit of an industrial or commercial undertaking is conclusive and binding on the parties and operates as res judicata. We are unable to accept this contention. The application under section 34 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act out of which Tenancy Appeal No. 83 of 1955 arose was filed by appellant No. 1 on the footing that the land was one to which the Act applied. The respondents also claimed protection under the Act on the same footing. The question whether the land was one to which the provisions of section 88(i)(b) of the Act applied was not directly or substantially in issue before the Mamlatdar. The Mamlatdar rejected the application on the ground that the requisite notice under section 88(1A) was not given. From this order appellant No. 1 filed Tenancy Appeal No. 83 of 1955 before the Prant Officer. In this appeal he for the first time contended that the land was held on lease for the benefit of an industrial or commercial undertaking and his application was therefore not maintainable. The Prant Officer accepted this contention and dismissed the appeal. Without framing a proper issue and without allowing the parties to adduce evidence on the new point the Prant Officer held that the land was held for the benefit of an industrial or Commercial undertaking. No issue was raised between the parties on this question before the Mamlatdar. The High Court rightly held that this question was not directly or substantially in issue at any stage of the case including the appellate stage. The decision of the Prant Officer on this question cannot operate as res judicata. The contention of Mr. Chhatrapati is rejected. No other point is raised before us. 2. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.