D. A. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a certified landlord and respondent is an excluded tenant. The petitioner made an application to the Mamlatdar under sec. 32t (1) for recovering possession of the land bearing S. No. 786 admeasuring 2 acres 11 gunthas situate at village Kanjari taluka Nadiad district Kaira on the ground that he required it for bona fide personal cultivation. The petitioner sent his application by registered post addressed to the Mamlatdar of Nadiad on 30th March 1962 which was received by the office of the Mamlatdar on 31st March 1962. The application thus received in the office of the Mamlatdar was presented before the Mamlatdar on 6th April 1962 on which date it was verified by the petitioner in the presence of the Mamlatdar. The proceedings commenced upon this application were continued further and ultimately the Mamlatdar by his judgment and order dated 15th October 1963 dismissed the application on two grounds (1) that the application is barred by limitation as it was presented on 6th April 1962; and (2) that the application ought to have been personally presented by the petitioner and ought to have been verified before the Mamlatdar which having not been done the same could not be entertained. The petitioner preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 10 of 1964 to the Prant Officer Nadiad. The Prant Officer by his judgment and order dated 15th July 1965 set aside the order of the Mamlatdar dismissing the application holding that as the application was received in the office of the Mamlatdar on 31-3-62 it was within time and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar to dispose of the application in accordance with law. The Mamlatdar decided all the remaining issues and by his judgment and order dated 15th September 1965 directed that the respondent tenant should hand over possession of half the land admeasuring 1 acre 57 gunthas from the land comprised in S. No. 186 to the petitioner. The respondent preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 60 of 1966 against the aforementioned order of the Mamlatdar to the Deputy Collector Kaira who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar by his judgment dated 13th February 1967. The respondent carried the matter to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by preferring Revision Application No. TEN. A. 245 of 1967. The respondent preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 60 of 1966 against the aforementioned order of the Mamlatdar to the Deputy Collector Kaira who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar by his judgment dated 13th February 1967. The respondent carried the matter to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by preferring Revision Application No. TEN. A. 245 of 1967. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 12th September 1967 allowed the revision application observing that the application initially made by the petitioner to the Mamlatdar under sec. 32t was not presented as required by sec. 7 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act 1906 and therefore it was liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the revision application was allowed and the application made by the petitioner to the Mamlatdar under sec. 32t was dismissed. The petitioner then filed review application bearing No. TEN. C. 25 of 1967 but the same was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 29th March 1968. The petitioner has challenged the correctness of the aforementioned two decisions of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. ( 2 ) MISS V. P. Shah learned advocate who appeared for the petitioner put forth following contentions at the hearing of this petition:- (1) Sending of an application by registered post by the certified landlord under sec. 32t (1) is proper presentation within the meaning of sec. 71 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) or under sec. 7 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act 1906 (2) Assuming that sending of the application by registered post is not proper presentation of the application to the Mamlatdar as required by law verification of the application recorded by the Mamlatdar on 6 April 1962 would relate back to the date on which application was received in the office of the Mamlatdar and procedural irregularity would stand cured. (3) The contention that the application made by the petitioner under sec. 32t was not properly presented is not open to the respondent in view of the earlier decision of the District Deputy Collector in Tenancy Appeal No. 10 of 1964 recorded in the same proceeding. ( 3 ) FIRST ground of attack is that sending of an application by registered post by the present petitioner under sec. 32t was not properly presented is not open to the respondent in view of the earlier decision of the District Deputy Collector in Tenancy Appeal No. 10 of 1964 recorded in the same proceeding. ( 3 ) FIRST ground of attack is that sending of an application by registered post by the present petitioner under sec. 32t (1) of the Tenancy Act seeking possession of land for bona fide personal cultivation is proper presentation of an application as required by law. The petitioner is a certified landlord and respondent is an excluded tenant. The petitioner as certified landlord was entitled to recover possession of land leased by him or bona fide personal cultivation. In order to obtain possession of land it was incumbent upon him to terminate the tenancy of the respondent and to make an application for possession to the Mamlatdar on or before 31 March 1962. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a certified landlord and the respondent is an excluded tenant. The petitioner was desirous of recovering possession of the land leased by him to the respondent for bona fide personal cultivation. The petitioner accordingly gave notice and terminated the tenancy of respondent and then sent an application as required by sec. 32t (1) by registered post to the Mamlatdar. This application was sent on 30th March 1961 and it is well established that it was received in the office of the Mamlatdar having jurisdiction in the matter on 31st March 1961 The grievance is that sending of an application for obtaining relief under sec. 32t (1) by registered post is not proper presentation of the application and on that short ground the application is liable to be dismissed this contention has found favour with the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and having upheld this contention the Tribunal has dismissed the application of the petitioner. ( 4 ) RELEVANT portion of sec. 71 of the Tenancy Act reads as under:-71 Save as expressly provided by or under this Act all inquiries and other proceedings before the Mamlatdar or Tribunal shall be commenced by an application which shall contain the following particulars. . . SEC. 72 provides procedure for conducting an inquiry or other proceedings commenced upon the presentation of an application under sec. 71. It reads as under:-IN all inquiries and proceedings commenced on the presentation of applications under sec. . . SEC. 72 provides procedure for conducting an inquiry or other proceedings commenced upon the presentation of an application under sec. 71. It reads as under:-IN all inquiries and proceedings commenced on the presentation of applications under sec. 71 the Mamlatdar or the Tribunal shall exercise the same powers as the Mamlatdars Court under the Mamlatdars Courts Act 1906 and shall save as provided in sec. 29 follow the provisions of the said Act as if the Mamlatdar or the Tribunal were a Mamlatdars Court under the said Act and the application presented was a plaint presented under sec. 7 of the said Act. In regard to matters which are not provided for in the said Act the Mamlatdar or the Tribunal shall follow the procedure as may be prescribed by the State Government. Every decision of the Mamlatdar or the Tribunal shall be recorded in the form of an order which shall state reasons for such decision. SEC. 7 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act 1906 provides that all suits under the said Act shall be commenced by a plaint which shall be presented to the Mamlatdar in open court by the plaintiff and which shall contain the particulars therein prescribed. Sec. 8 provides that where a petition of a plaintiff approaching the court for relief under sec. 5 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act is presented to the Mamlatdar and the grievance made therein falls within the scope of sec. 5 but the petition is not in the proper form a duty is cast upon the Mamlatdar to explain to the person presenting the petition the nature of the reliefs afforded by the said Act and to inquire whether the petitioner desires to obtain some such reliefs and if the petitioner expresses a desire to that effect the Mamlatdar has to endorse the desire on the petition which shall thereupon be deemed to be a plaint presented under sec. 7. Sec. 9 provides that if the plaint presented to the Mamlatdar under sec. 7 does not contain the particulars specified in sec. 7 or is unnecessarily prolix the Mamlatdar must forthwith examine the plaintiff upon oath and ascertain from him such of the particulars specified in sec. 7. Sec. 9 provides that if the plaint presented to the Mamlatdar under sec. 7 does not contain the particulars specified in sec. 7 or is unnecessarily prolix the Mamlatdar must forthwith examine the plaintiff upon oath and ascertain from him such of the particulars specified in sec. 7 as are not clearly and correctly stated in the plaint and has to reduce the examination to writing in the form of an endorsement on annexure to the plaint which shall thereupon be deemed to be part of the plaint. If the plaintiff is unable to give all the particulars there and then and prays for adjournment the same has to be granted for such period as may under all the circumstances appear reasonable. Once a plaint is presented and it is found to conform with the requirements of sec. 7 the Mamlatdar must call upon the plaintiff to subscribe and verify the plaint in his presence in the open court in the manner set out in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 11. Sec. 11 casts a duty upon the Mamlatdar to endorse the plaint to the effect that it was duly subscribed and verified. Sec. 12 enables the Mamlatdar to reject the plaint in one or other circumstances mentioned in that section. Sec. 3 (b) defines the words `plaintiff and `defendant which provides that the words `plaintiff and `defendant shall include (i) a pleader duly appointed to act on behalf of such plaintiff or defendant and (ii) the recognised agent of a plaintiff or defendant as defined in sec. 37 the Code of Civil Procedure. The provision corresponding to sec. 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is O. III R. 2. ( 5 ) SECS. 7 8 9 10 and 11 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act do prima facie indicate that the plaintiff filing a suit under sec 5 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act should present the plaint in person or through duly recognised agent. Ordinarily the plaint should be presented by the plaintiff in person or through a duly recognised agent. That appears to be the general mode of presentation of plaints. The question is whether any other mode of presentation of plaint is specifically excluded by any provision of the Mamlatdars Courts Act. There is nothing in the scheme of secs. Ordinarily the plaint should be presented by the plaintiff in person or through a duly recognised agent. That appears to be the general mode of presentation of plaints. The question is whether any other mode of presentation of plaint is specifically excluded by any provision of the Mamlatdars Courts Act. There is nothing in the scheme of secs. 7 8 9 10 11 and 12 which either expressly or by necessary implication indicate that a plaint not presented by the plaintiff in person for by; is recognised agent shall be rejected. In fact there is some indication in sec. 12 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act indicating in what circumstances the plaint can be rejected without further inquiry into the allegations made in the plaint. There are express provisions in four sub-clauses of sec. 12 specifically setting out different circumstances in which the plaint presented to Mamlatdar can be rejected. If the Mamlatdar was also authorised to the reject the plaint not presented by the plaintiff in person or by recognised agent sec. 12 would have provided to that effect. In the absence of any such provision the legislative intent becomes manifestly clear that if the plaint is not presented in person by the plaintiff or by his recognised agent at best it may be irregularity which can be positively cured. It also appears from the language of secs. 8 and 9 that as soon as the plaint is presented it need not be admitted. It also appears that the plaint may not be in the prescribed form and yet it is not open to the Mamlatdar to reject it. A duty is cast on the Mamlatdar to ascertain from the person coming to the court with a grievance set out in writing but not in the form of a plaint as envisaged in sec. 7 to ascertain from such person the necessary details and reduce the same to writing and convert that ordinary writing into a plaint and register the same. The language of sec. 10 indicates that the verification of the plaintiff may be recorded not on the very day on which the plaint is presented but on a subsequent date. Therefore even though the provisions contained in secs. The language of sec. 10 indicates that the verification of the plaintiff may be recorded not on the very day on which the plaint is presented but on a subsequent date. Therefore even though the provisions contained in secs. 7 8 9 10 11 do prima facie indicate that the plaint should be presented by the plaintiff in person or through his duly recognised agent it does not rule out a possibility of plaint being presented in any other manner and entertained by the Mamlatdar. In this case the plaint was sent by a registered post. It had reached the office of the Mamlatdar before the last date for presentation of the plaint. The Mamlatdar proceeded to examine the plaint a few days after and on that day the petitioner was present and the Mamlatdar recorded his verification. Such verification would relate back to the date on which the plaint was presented. Therefore such presentation of the plaint could not be said to be illegal as to result in dismissal of the suit on that ground alone. At best it can be said to be an irregularity in presentation of the plaint which irregularity can be cured. The proposition that the irregularity in presentation of the plaint or its verification can be cured at later stage and after it is cured it would relate back to the date on which the plaint is presented is so well settled that it need not be supported by an authority. However if anyone is necessary I may refer to a division bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in All India Reporter Ltd. v. Ramchandra Dhondo Datar 62 Bom. L. R. 251 in which it is observed:- As already pointed out the general consensus of authority of the Bombay High Court and other High Courts is in favour of the view that defects and irregularities in the matter of signing verifying or presenting plaints are mere irregularities of procedure which do not make the suit ineffective inoperative or void. Once it can be cured the point would the deemed to have been presented on the date on which it was presented in a defective form. Therefore even if this particular case could he said to be strictly governed by the provisions of the Mamlatdars Courts Act there is nothing illegal in presentation of the plaint in this case. Once it can be cured the point would the deemed to have been presented on the date on which it was presented in a defective form. Therefore even if this particular case could he said to be strictly governed by the provisions of the Mamlatdars Courts Act there is nothing illegal in presentation of the plaint in this case. ( 6 ) THERE is another way of looking at the matter. Sec. 71 of the tenancy Act provides that all inquiries and other proceedings before the Mamlatdar under the said Act shall be commenced on an application containing details set out in be commenced of sec. 71. Sec. 72 provides that in all inquiries and proceedings commenced on the presentation of the application under sec. 71 the Mamlatdar shall follow the procedure prescribed in the Mamlatdars Courts Act as if the application presented was a plaint presented under sec. 7 of the said Act. It appears from the provisions contained in sec. 71 and 72 that an application has to be presented to the Mamlatdar as provided by sec. 71 need not be con presented it shall be deemed to be by fiction enacted in sec. 72 shall be deemed to be a plaint presented under sec. 7 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act. The presentation has to be under sec. 71 read with sec. 71 does not that presentation is over the fiction enacted in sec. 72 would be attracted and such an application would be deemed to be a plaint presented under sec. 7 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act. The language of sec. 71 does not provide for any particular mode of presentation of the application When there is no such specific provision sending of an application by registered post which is certainly a recognised mode of sending communications could not be said to have been excluded by anything done under sec. 71. Therefore an application under sec. 71 can in my opinion be presented by sending it by registered post. After it is received by the Mamlatdar it would certainly be incumbent upon him to proceed according to the procedure prescribed in the Mamlatdars Courts Act. But for the purpose of presentation the Mamlatdar has to proceed as provided in sec. 71. The proceeding has to be commenced under sec. After it is received by the Mamlatdar it would certainly be incumbent upon him to proceed according to the procedure prescribed in the Mamlatdars Courts Act. But for the purpose of presentation the Mamlatdar has to proceed as provided in sec. 71. The proceeding has to be commenced under sec. 71 by presenting an application which when presented shall be deemed to be a plaint an application cannot be a valid presentation and on that account alone the for reliefs under the Tenancy Act presented by registered post to the Mamlatdar would be a valid presentation and on that account alone the application cannot be dismissed. Mr. Desai however urged that unless by statue or by rules a provision in made whereby application sent by registered post can be entertained the normal rule shall prevail that the court shall not entertain communication received by post. For this Mr. Desai referred to rule 4 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Rule; 1947 and decision in Ashalal Maganlal Shah v. Punjaji Ghalaji 56 Bom. L. R. 60. Rule 4 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Rules provides that the applications under sec. 4 (1) shall be presented to the court during office hours by the applicant personally or shall be sent by registered post addressed to the court and shall be received by the court or Judge or by such person as may be authorised by him to receive them. The application had to be made within sixty days from the date on which the Act was brought into force and last date in that case for making application was January 31 1950 The petitioners sent their applications by registered post on January 31 1950 The Court received them on February 1 1950 The contention was that the applications were barred by limitation. Negativing this contention it was held that as the post office was the constituted agent of the court for receiving application when the applications were handed in on 31st January 1950 they were presented in time. This decision will be of no assistance in this case. As rule 4 permitted application being sent by registered post the post office became the agent of the court. The application had to be presented to the court. The rule enables the applicant to send it by registered post. This decision will be of no assistance in this case. As rule 4 permitted application being sent by registered post the post office became the agent of the court. The application had to be presented to the court. The rule enables the applicant to send it by registered post. Therefore whenever an application was handed in to the post office the post office as the agent of the court received the same. In the case before me there is no specific provision for sending application by registered post. Therefore when the applicant sends the application by registered post and pays registration charges the post office would be the agent of the applicant and not of the court or the authority to whom the application is addressed. In such circumstances the application could be said to have been presented on the date on which it is received by the office to which it is addressed and not the date on which it is presented to the post office. But I fail to see how this decision can be said to be an authority for the proposition that where there is no specific provision for sending application by post that mode of communication is barred and would be treated illegal as would result in dismissal of the application on that ground alone. In fact such an approach would be ignoring the modern scientific methods of communication which it would not be proper to do more so when for getting reliefs under the Tenancy Act people in remote villages will have every time to rush down to the Mamlatdar at the taluka head quarter. I see no justification for putting such a construction on sec. 71 of the Tenancy Act and particularly on sec. 7 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act. ( 7 ) IT would thus appear that the application of the petitioner was properly presented to the Mamlatdar and even if there was any irregularity in the presentation of the application the same was cured by its verification on 6th April 1962. It was done in the presence of the Mamlatdar and which verification would relate back to the date on which the application was received in the office of the Mamlatdar which was admittedly within the period of limitation. It was done in the presence of the Mamlatdar and which verification would relate back to the date on which the application was received in the office of the Mamlatdar which was admittedly within the period of limitation. Therefore both the contentions of Miss Shah must prevail and it must be held that the application was properly presented and if there was any irregularity in presentation the same is cured when the Mamlatdar recorded verification of the petitioner. ( 8 ) THE last ground of attack of Miss Shah was that the contention that the application was not properly presented is no more open to the respondent. As I have taken the view that the application of the petitioner was properly presented it is not at all necessary for me to decide the question whether the contention to that effect is open to the respondent or not though I must confess that prima facie there was considerable force in the submission of Miss Shah. But once the contention is decided on merits it would be wholly academic decide the technical objection that it was not open to the respondent to raise the contention when the matter was before the Revenue Tribunal and I do not propose to go into that academic discussion. ( 9 ) THE Gujarat Revenue Tribunal rejects the application of the present petitioner on the short ground that it was not properly presented. The application in view of what I have stated above could not have been dismissed on that ground alone. No other contention was raised by the respondent against the order of the Mamlatdar and of the Deputy Collector giving possession of half the land to the petitioner. Therefore the petition will haw to be allowed and the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal will have to be quashed and set aside and the order of the Mamlatdar confirmed by the Deputy Collector will have to be restored. ( 10 ) I may incidentally point out that Mr. Desai for the respondent wanted to urge that the matter should be remanded to the Revenue Tribunal for permitting him to raise other contentions. Looking to the judgment of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal it appears that the respondents raised only one contention before the Tribunal that the original application was not properly presented. No other contention was pressed before the Revenue Tribunal. Looking to the judgment of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal it appears that the respondents raised only one contention before the Tribunal that the original application was not properly presented. No other contention was pressed before the Revenue Tribunal. It was never contended that on some other grounds the petitioner would not be entitled to recover possession of half the land leased to the respondent. Mr. Desai urged that as the respondent was likely to succeed only on one ground) the Tribunal might have ignored other contentions. I cannot entertain this submission because In the petition it has been specifically stated that only one contention was put forth before the Tribunal and the today it has not been controverted either by affidavit in reply or the affidavit of the learned advocate who appeared on behalf of the respondent before the Tribunal. Therefore the respondent cannot be permitted to raise any other contention before this Court at this stage. Mr. Desai however urged that there is one pure question of law which if he is permitted to urge would result in confirming the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on other ground. Mr. Desai urged that the land leased to the respondent admeasures 2 acres and 11 gunthas. It was urged that if possession of half the land was ordered to be given to the petitioner he would be entitled to 1 acre and 5. 1/2 gunthas which would be a fragment. Mr. Desai wanted to refer to sec. 8aa of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act and urge that even in execution of order or decree of a court it would not be open to create a fragment. There is no force in this contention Sec. 32t (5) (b) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act 1947 the landlord shall be entitled to take possession of the land leased to the extent of half the area thereof. There are two provisos annexed to the sub-section which are not material for our purpose. Sub-clause (b) of sub-sec. (5) of sec. 32t starts with nonobstantate clause. The result would be that the court will have to give effect to that sub-section ignoring the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolation of Holdings Act 1947 In this view of the matter sec. Sub-clause (b) of sub-sec. (5) of sec. 32t starts with nonobstantate clause. The result would be that the court will have to give effect to that sub-section ignoring the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolation of Holdings Act 1947 In this view of the matter sec. 8aa will not come in the way of the court from directing possession of half the land to be banded over to the petitioner even if it results in creating a fragment. Therefore the contention of Mr. Desai must be negatived. ; ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion this petition succeeds and the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 12th September 1967 is quashed and set aside and the order of the Deputy Collector and Agricultural Lands Tribunal No. 1 dated 15th September 1965 in case No. 63 of 1962 confirmed by an order of the Deputy Collector Kaira District dated 13th February 1967 in Tenancy Appeal No. 60 of 1966 is restored. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs. .