B. J. DIVAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is the owner and the respondent is his tenant in respect of S. No. 648 of Samiyala village of Baroda Taluka of Baroda District. In respect of this land of the petitioner a certificate under sec. 88c of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) Was issued and the respondent became the excluded tenant in respect of this S. No The petitioner applied under sec 32t of the Act for possession as he wanted the land for his own personal cultivation. The Mamlatdar granted possession of half the land viz. 37 gunthas to the petitioner. Against the decision of the Mamlatdar there was an appeal and the Special Deputy Collector Baroda who heard the appeal dismissed it. Thereafter the petitioner took the matter in revision to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal remanded the matter on merits but the Revenue Tribunal observed that the respondent with whom the moiety of the land was left after the landlord is given possession of half of the land under sec. 32t becomes a deemed purchaser of the moiety of the land that has remained with him and in arriving at that conclusion the Revenue Tribunal relied upon the earlier decision of the Full Bench of that Tribunal and it is against the conclusion of the Revenue Tribunal that the respondent had become the deemed purchaser of one half of the S. No. that was not given to the petitioner that the present application under Art. 227 of the Constitution has been filed. ( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the view taken by the Revenue Tribunal it is necessary to refer to sec. 32t and to analyse the provisions of the Act. Under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 32t notwithstanding anything contained in sec. 31 to 31b but subject to the provisions of sec. 32t a certified landlord may after giving a notice and making an application for possession as provided by sub-sec. (3) terminate the tenancy of an excluded tenant if the landlord bona fide requires such land for cultivating it personally. Under sub-sec. (5) the right of a certified landlord to terminate the tenancy under sec. 32t is subject to certain conditions. 32t a certified landlord may after giving a notice and making an application for possession as provided by sub-sec. (3) terminate the tenancy of an excluded tenant if the landlord bona fide requires such land for cultivating it personally. Under sub-sec. (5) the right of a certified landlord to terminate the tenancy under sec. 32t is subject to certain conditions. We are not concerned with clause (a) of these conditions but under clause (b) notwithstanding anything contained in the Bombay prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act 1947 a landlord shall be entitled to take possession of the land leased to the extent of half the area thereof provided that if at the date on which the application for possession is made by the landlord to the Mamlatdar in accordance with sub-sec. (3) or (4) (i) the landlord has not been cultivating personally any other land or has been cultivating personally other land less than half an economic holding; and (ii) the tenant has been cultivating and is entitled to continue to cultivate personally other land exceeding half an economic holding the landlord shall be entitled to take possession of the whole of the land leased. Sub-secs. (6) and (7) of sec. 32t provide:- (6) The tenancy of any land left with the tenant after the termination of the tenancy under this section shall not at any time afterwards be liable to termination again on the ground that the landlord bona fide requires that land for personal cultivation. (7) If in consequence of the termination of the tenancy under this section any part of the land leased is left with the tenant. the rent shall be apportioned in the prescribed manner in proportion to the area of the land left with the tenant. UNDER sec. 32u provision is made for deemed purchase of land by excluded tenants. Under sec. 32 (1) (iii) proviso where. the landlord has made an application for possession but it is rejected by the Mamlatdar or in appeal by the Collector or in revision by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal under the provisions of the Act the tenant shall be deemed to have purchased the land on the date on which the final order of rejection is passed. the landlord has made an application for possession but it is rejected by the Mamlatdar or in appeal by the Collector or in revision by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal under the provisions of the Act the tenant shall be deemed to have purchased the land on the date on which the final order of rejection is passed. The view taken by the Full Bench of the Revenue following an earlier decision of the President of the Tribunal is that when a landlord is given moiety of the land in a proceeding under sec. 321. the other moiety Remaining with the tenant then the application is deemed to have been rejected as regards the moiety remaining with hire tenant and by virtue of proviso to sec. 32u (1) (iii) the tenant becomes a deemed purchaser of the land which remains with him i. e. in respect of the moiety. It appears that in the Full Bench decision in Ramanbhai Nanabhai v. Bhikhabhai Lallubhai. VII Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Law Reporter 71 the Tribunal did not take into consideration the scheme of sec. 32t (5) (b ). Provisions of sub-secs. (6) and (7) standing by themselves may be read in a particular way but when the whole scheme of sec. 32t (5) and sec. 32u (1) (iii) proviso read in the light of sub-secs. (6) and (7) of sec. 32t is taken into consideration it clearly emerges in my opinion that the tenant continues to be the tenant in respect of the moiety tenant which remains with him as the section stands otherwise there would be no sense in the Legislature providing that in respect of any part of the lend left with the tenant the rent has to be apportioned in the prescribed manner in proportion to the area of the land left with the tenant. In my view since no landlord obtain possession more than half of that land leased by him under ordinary circumstances contemplated by sec. 32t (5) (d) the Legislature has provided in clause (7) for the apportionment of the rent for the land in respect of which the claim of the landlord is not allowed by the Mamlatdar. The word rejected occurring in the proviso to sec 32u (1) (iii) cannot be given an artificial meaning by reading in the words of sec. 32t (5) (d) the Legislature has provided in clause (7) for the apportionment of the rent for the land in respect of which the claim of the landlord is not allowed by the Mamlatdar. The word rejected occurring in the proviso to sec 32u (1) (iii) cannot be given an artificial meaning by reading in the words of sec. 32t the word rejection regarding the moiety of the land which is allowed to remain with the tenant one half being given to the landlord on his application under sec. 32t. in my opinion the view taken by the Full Bench of the Revenue Tribunal in Ramanlals case (supra) is slot in accordance with the provisions of secs. 32t and 32u discussed above and hence the decision of the Revenue Tribunal in the instant case where it followed the view taken by the Full Bench of the Tribunal v as clearly erroneous. ( 3 ) I therefore allow this Special Civil Application and set aside the order of the Revenue Tribunal in so far as it purports to hold that the tenant the respondent herein is to become the deemed purchaser of the moiety of the land which will remain with him. The rest of the order of the Revenue Tribunal is correct and no grievance is made before me on behalf of the landlord regarding the remaining portion of the order of the Revenue Tribunal. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. .