JUDGMENT - S.M. HAJARNAVIS, J.:---In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the petitioner changes the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Niphad, remanding the case with a direction that in considering the application of the landlord under section 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1943 (here in after called as the "Tenancy Act") the Mamlatdar should take into consideration his income of the year preceding the tillers day and not the income of the year in which he has made his application. The petitioner is a landlord of Survey No. 45/1 admeasuring 3 acres and 23 gunthas of village Rui, Taluka Niphad, District Nasik. The petitioner had tiled an application under section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy Act for terminating the tenancy of his tenant on the ground that he required the land bona fide for cultivating it personally. This application was finally rejected by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 16th October, 1961. While these proceedings were pending, he filed on application on 6th September, 1961 under section 88-C of the Tenancy Act for an exemption certificate. The Mamlatdar, after completing the enquiry, issued the certificate to the petitioner. On an appeal filed by the tenant, the case was remanded to the trial Court on 14th October, 1963. After the remand, his application was dismissed by the Mamlatdar. The petitioner then filed an appeal and the matter was again remanded to the Mamlatdar with the direction that he should consider the annual income of the petitioner for the year 1960-61. It may be mentioned that there was no disputed between the parties that the landlord held less than economic holding. The only dispute was about the annual income. The Mamlatdar held that the annual income of the petitioner was less than Rs. 1,500/-. He therefore, granted the certificate. The respondent filed an appeal and the case was remanded fat the third time with the direction that the annual income for the year 1956-57 should be determined and not for the year 1960-61. It is against this judgment that the present petition has been filed. Mr. Sali, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that the annual income of the landlord should be determined on the postponed date and not on the tillers day. He submitted that in this case the date of the purchase is postponed date and not the tillers day. It is against this judgment that the present petition has been filed. Mr. Sali, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that the annual income of the landlord should be determined on the postponed date and not on the tillers day. He submitted that in this case the date of the purchase is postponed date and not the tillers day. In my view the submission is well-founded. The Full Bench of this Court has already held in (Anna Balgonda Patil v. Vasant Raghunath Kulkarni)1, 64 Bom.L.R. 591. "For the purpose of section 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, in cases in which a tenant is deemed to have purchased the land held by him as a tenant before the application made by the landlord under section 88-C of the Act is decided, the date on which the landlord should satisfy the requirements of section 88-C, in order to be obtain a certificate under this section, is the date on which the tenant is deemed to have purchased the land. In other cases in which the application under section 88-C is decided before the tenant can be deemed to have purchased the land held by him, the material date, by reference to which it should be decided whether the landlord is entitled to a certificate under section 88-C, will be the date on which the, landlord had made an application under this section.” That being the position, the Sub-Divisional Officer has committed an error in holding that the annual income of the petitioner should be determined with reference to the year preceding the tillers day. There is no manner of doubt that the application under section 31 of the Tenancy Act was pending and, therefore, the deemed date of the purchase is “postponed date” and the petitioner has filed application before the “postponed date.” It is the income of that year which should be taken into consideration while deciding the landlords application under section 88-C of the Tenancy Act. That being so, the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer is liable to be quashed. In the result, the petition is allowed and the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer is set aside and the matter is sent back for decision to the Sub-Divisional Officer on merits. The rule is made absolute. Under the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. -----