JUDGMENT - Joshi V.V., J.: - This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner-tenant challenges the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajura and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, allowing the respondent-landlords application under section 32(2) read with section 1950 of the Hydera had Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1950(hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) and directing the delivery of possession of the suit lands to the respondent-landlord. 2. The lands in question are survey Nos. 19, area 8 acres 30 gunthas and survey No. 23, area 6 acres 17 gunthas of village Tulana in Rajura Tahsil of Chandrapur district. The lands in Rajura tahsil are governed by the Hyderabad Tenancy Act. The petitioner is the tenant in possession of these fields while the respondent is the landlord. 3. On 19-1-1973 the respondent filed an application in the Court of the Tahsildar, Rajura, purporting to be under section 19 of the Tenancy Act. In that application the respondent-landlord mentioned that the petitioner had not paid the rent in respect of the suit land which was Rs. 67.50 per year, for the three years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. The respondent had issued >notices to the petitioner requiring him to pay the rent amounts, but even then he had not paid the rent. Therefore, the tenancy .of the petitioner was terminated and the respondent was entitled to possession. The copies of the three notices dated 7-6-1970, 16-8-1970 and 28-6-1972 alleged to have been sent to the petitioner were filed on record by the respondent along with his .application under section 19 of the Tenancy Act. In all these three notices it was mentioned that the notice was being given to the petitioner because he had not paid the rent for the respective year and there was further recital that the petitioner was being informed by the notice that be should come and pay to the respondent the amount of lease money within 8 days from the .date of receipt of notice, otherwise “legal proceeding will be taken against you”. The present petitioner appeared in the Court of the Tahsildar and in reply to the respondents application, admitted that be had not paid the rent for the 3 years, but disputed the actual amount due as rent for the said 3 years. The petitioner explained that he could not pay the rent because of failure of crops. The present petitioner appeared in the Court of the Tahsildar and in reply to the respondents application, admitted that be had not paid the rent for the 3 years, but disputed the actual amount due as rent for the said 3 years. The petitioner explained that he could not pay the rent because of failure of crops. It was also contended that the petitioner- tenants rights could not be terminated because he was prepared to pay the rent within the time fixed. There was a prayer that he should be given 90 days time to pay the rent. On this set of pleadings, the parties went to evidence and eventually the Naib-Tahsildar, Rajura passed the final order in the case on 24-4-1973. He .observed in the course of this order that the intimation of the default had been given to the tenant within the time required by the proviso below section 28(1) of the Tenancy Act. The second finding recorded by the Naib Tahsildar, Rajura was that under the proviso below section 19(2), (a), (iii) of the Tenancy Act, no tenancy of any land held by a tenant could be terminated unless the landholder gives six months notice in writing intimating his decision to terminate the tenancy and the grounds for such termination. No such notice was served upon the tenant-petitioner in this case and therefore, the tenancy in this case could not be said to be terminated. In view of this finding actually the Naib Tahsildar, Rajura, should have dismissed the application for possession filed by the respondent-landlord under section 19 read with section 28 of the Tenancy Act. However, purporting to act under the proviso below section 28(2) of the Tenancy Act, the Naib Tahsildar, Rajura, ordered the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 202.50 for the three years 1969-70 to 1971-72 within a period of three months from the date of the order along with costs of the proceeding Rs. 11.15 failing which “the tenancy shall be deemed to be terminated and the tenant Samba shall be liable to be evicted.” 4. 202.50 for the three years 1969-70 to 1971-72 within a period of three months from the date of the order along with costs of the proceeding Rs. 11.15 failing which “the tenancy shall be deemed to be terminated and the tenant Samba shall be liable to be evicted.” 4. Against this order passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Rajura, the present respondent preferred an appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajura, who allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Naib Tahsildar, Rajura and instead ordered that the res pondent-landlord will be put in possession of the suit fields by the lower Court, as the tenant had committed three defaults of rental arrears though he was intimated separately in respect of each default and that too within time as prescribed under section 19 of [he Tenancy Act and his tenancy ultimately stood terminated. The present petitioner then preferred a revision petition to the Revenue Tribunal which by its order dated 5th September 1974 dismissed the revision application. 5. It would seem to me that in this case the finding of the Naib Tahsildar, Rajura that no proper notice under section 19(2),(iii) of the Tenancy Act had been served on the petitioner-tenant and therefore, his tenancy could not be said to have been terminated, was a perfectly correct finding, though in the operative portion of his order even the Naib Tahsildar, Rajura, committed the mistake of passing a conditional order for payment of rent due against the petitioner, on pain of ejection from the land in case of non-payment. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajura and the Revenue Tribunal seem to have missed the real point in issue altogether. 6. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to examine the provisions of section 19 and section 28 of the Tenancy Act. The relevant portion of section 19 which deals with “termination of tenancy” is as follows : - “19.(1) Notwithstanding any agreement or usage or any decree or order of a Court of law no tenancy shall be terminated otherwise than- (a) X X X (b) by the landholder on a ground specified in sub-section(2). The relevant portion of section 19 which deals with “termination of tenancy” is as follows : - “19.(1) Notwithstanding any agreement or usage or any decree or order of a Court of law no tenancy shall be terminated otherwise than- (a) X X X (b) by the landholder on a ground specified in sub-section(2). (2) The landholder may terminate a tenancy on the ground that the tenant- (a), (i) has failed to pay in any year within fifteen days from the day fixed under the Land Revenue Act for the payment of the last instalment of land revenue due for the land concerned in that year; the rent of such land for that year; or (ii) X X X (iii) X X X (b) X X X (c) X X X (d) X X X (e) X X X Provided that no tenancy of any land held by a tenant shall be terminated on any of the grounds mentioned in this sub-section unless the landholder gives six months notice in writing intimating his decision to terminate the tenancy and the grounds for such termination: and - Section 28 is as follows: “28.(1) Where a tenancy of any land held by a tenant is terminated for non-payment of rent and the landholder files any proceeding to eject the tenant, the Tahsildar shall call upon the tenant to tender to the landholder the rent in arrear together with the cost of proceeding, within ninety days from the date of the order, and if the tenant complies with such order, the Tahsildar shall, in lieu of making an order of ejectment pass an order directing that the tenancy has not been terminated, and thereupon the tenant shall hold the land as if the tenancy had :riot been terminated: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any tenant whose tenancy is terminated for non-payment of rent if be has failed for any three years to pay rent within the period specified in sub.clause(i) of clause(a) of sub-section(2) of section 19 and the landholder has given intimation to the tenant of the default within a period of six months of each default. (2) The landholder may apply to the Tahsildar in the prescribed form for recovery of arrears of rent for any period not exceeding three years. (2) The landholder may apply to the Tahsildar in the prescribed form for recovery of arrears of rent for any period not exceeding three years. The Tahsildar may, after such enquiry as he considers necessary pass such order as be deems fit. The Tahsildar in passing an order shall allow the tenant to set off the sum, if any, paid by him to the landholder within the period of three years immediately preceding the date of application made under sub-section(1) in excess of the rent due from him: Provided that if the Tahsildar is satisfied that in consequence of a total or partial failure of crops or similar calamity the tenant has been unable to pay the rent due, the Tahsildar may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the arrears of rent together with costs of the proceedings, if a warded, shall be paid within one year from the date of the order and that if before the expiry of the said period the tenant fails to pay the said arrears of rent and costs, the tenancy shall be deemed to be terminated and the tenant shall be liable to be evicted. (3), (is not material for the purposes of this case).” 7. Now it is necessary to note that it is section 19 under which the tenancy of the tenant is terminated and the tenancy is so terminated by the landholder on the ground of non-payment of rent. Section 28(1) is only a provision for the landlord to obtain possession of the land from the tenant. whose tenancy has already been terminated, subject to certain reliefs which the Tahsildar is entitled to give to the tenant. The real point to note is that here the tenancy is not terminated either by the Tahsildar, or by making an application to the Tahsildar under section 28(1) of the Tenancy Act, but by proper service of a proper notice by the landlord under section 19(2), (a), (i) in accordance with the proviso thereunder. It is that proviso which is important. It requires the landholder to give “six months notice in writing intimating his decision to terminate the tenancy and the grounds for such termination.” The simple question is whether in the” present case the tenancy of the petitioner tenant was terminated by the respondent-landlord in accordance with the provisions of this proviso below section 19(2) of the Tenancy Act. It requires the landholder to give “six months notice in writing intimating his decision to terminate the tenancy and the grounds for such termination.” The simple question is whether in the” present case the tenancy of the petitioner tenant was terminated by the respondent-landlord in accordance with the provisions of this proviso below section 19(2) of the Tenancy Act. It is true, notices were given, but they were notices requiring the tenant to pay rent within 8 days. They could not properly be construed as notices of six months. In these notices the landlord-respondent did not intimate his intention to terminate the tenancy. All that he stated was that if the rent was not paid within 8 days he would take legal action against the tenant Mr. Ghate for the respondent says that “taking legal action” against the notices as recited in these notices necessarily implied termination of tenancy and taking of proceedings under section 19 read with section 28(1) of the Act for possession of land in the Court of Tahsildar. I am afraid, that is not the only legal proceeding that could have been taken on failure of the petitioner-tenant to pay the rent within 8 days. Another proceeding that could properly have been taken in that case would be an application to the Tahsildar for recovery of the unpaid rent in accordance with the provisions of section 28(3) of the Tenancy Act. There was nothing in these notices which gave any indication to the notices, the present petitioner-tenant, as to which of these two proceedings the landlord-respondent was threatening to take if the rent was not paid within 8 days as directed in the notice. The other infirmity was that it directed the petitoner-tenant to pay the rent within 8 days. Under law be was entitled to a notice which gave him six months time for payment of rent. Surely these notices could not be construed as proper notices culminating into the mination of the tenancy as required by the proviso below section 19(2) of the Tenancy Act; It the tenancies of the petitioner were not terminated, the respondent-landlord was not entitled to maintain the application under section 28(l) of the Tenancy Act in the Court of the Tahsildar. 8. The argument of Mr. 8. The argument of Mr. Ghate that the recital in the notice that the respondent would take legal action against the petitioner could only indicate that he was going to file an application for possession under section 28(1) of the Tenancy Act after termination of the tenancy, and ,not an action for recovery of rent under section 28(2) of the Tenancy. Act, because an action under section 28(2) for recover of the defaulted rent did not require. the issue of a notice before taking the action, again can not be accepted. It is true, no notice is required to be given to the tenant before taking action for recovery of rent under section 28(2) of the Tenancy Act. But surely there is no provision saying that no such notice could be given. How was the petitioner tenant to know whether by saying that he would take legal action against the petitioner-tenant, if the rent is not paid within 8days, the land lord was going to take action for termination, of tenancy and possession of land under section 28(1), or, for recovery of rent up under section 28(2)? Therefore, this contention of Mr. Ghate also cannot accepted. 9. Heavy reliance was placed by Mr. Ghate on the observation of this Court in(Raojibhai v. Karsanbhai)l 1960 N.L.J. 555. These observation are:- “Even though a notice to quit is not strictly accurate or consistent in the statements embodied in it, the test of sufficiency will be satisfied if the tenant, who presumably be conversant with the facts and circumtances existing at the time, would reasonably be-expected to understand it is an unequivocal intention of the landlords decision to terminate the tenancy under the provisions of the statute. The Court will construe the notice required by the statute, as it construes other notice to quit, not with a view to finding faults in it, which would render it defective, but ut res magis valeat, quam pereal.” In that case the Court was dealing with a notice under section 14(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.. That was a notice by the landlord stating that the tenancy was terminated and the tenant should hand over possession after three months by reason of default in payment of rent. That was a notice by the landlord stating that the tenancy was terminated and the tenant should hand over possession after three months by reason of default in payment of rent. The notice was as follows :- I “We give you this notice that as you have failed to give us our share as the owner, your tenancy is terminated, You should hand over possession of our land after three months of the receipt of this notice.” The Court observed : “The words “your tenancy is terminated” if read in isolation would convey the sense that the tenancy was being terminated forthwith. But the words must be read in their popper context and along with and not divorced from what followed them In the words immediately following, land-lord had in terms express and implicit, called upon the tenant to hand over possession of the land after three month” of the receipt of notice. It would be taking too rigid a view of the language of section 14 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, to read in the words of this Notice something which bad failed to carry out the requirements of the Jaw. The notice was therefore valid.” 10. Now in that Bombay case it was expressly stated that the tenancy was terminated. In the present case there are no such words, not even is there expression of an intention of the landlord-respondent to terminate the tenancy, as is required to be specifically mentioned in the notice by reason of the proviso below section 19(2) of the Tenancy Act. The landlord does not even say in these notices that the proceeding he was threatening to take against the petitioner-tenant on non-payment of rent was the proceeding either for termination of tenancy or for taking possession of the land. It would be going too far to read all this, which the law specifically requires to be expressly, stated in the notice, by implication, when there is nothing in the notice itself to justify such an implication. 11. Reliance was also placed by Mr Ghate on the observations of the Maharashtra Revenue(Tribunalin Samba v. Pandurang)2 1961N.L.J. 482. There the Revenue” Tribunal was dealing with a notice required to be given under section 38(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands(Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958. 11. Reliance was also placed by Mr Ghate on the observations of the Maharashtra Revenue(Tribunalin Samba v. Pandurang)2 1961N.L.J. 482. There the Revenue” Tribunal was dealing with a notice required to be given under section 38(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands(Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958. The provisions of section 38(1) of that Act are of an entirely different nature. The said section is as follows; “38(1) Not with standing anything contained in section 9 or 19 but subject to the provisions or sub-sections(2) to(5), a landlord may after giving to the tenant one years notice in writing at any time within two years from the commecement of this Act and making an application for possession as provided in sub-section(21) of section 36 terminate the tenancy of the land held by a tenant other than an occupancy tenant if he bona fide require the land cultivating if personally.” The tribunal in, that case observed very correctly that it was clear from the wording of sect ton 38 (1) that if a landlord bona fide requires his land for cultivating it, personally, be may after giving to the tenant one years notice in writing, and after making an application for possession as provided in sub-section(2) of section. 36 terminate the tenancy, i.e. the termination of the tenancy followed automatilly after the two steps are taken, It was observed that the provisions, of section 38(1) reproduced above nowhere requiry that the intention to terminate tenancy should be specified in the notice itself. In that respect that provision stood on entirely different footing from the provisions of the proviso below section 19(2) of the Tenancy Act which specifically requires the landholder to mention in the notice his decision to terminate the tenancy and the ground for such termination. Here the termination is not automatic or by making an application to the Tahsildar under section 28(1) but by the landlord on giving the requisite notice under section 19(2) of the Tenancy Act. 12. Mr. Ghate for the respondent contended that this was a new point being taken up now in the petition. No objection to the validity of the notices had been raised by the petitioner in the trial Court. It is true, in the trial Court, no such contention was taken. 12. Mr. Ghate for the respondent contended that this was a new point being taken up now in the petition. No objection to the validity of the notices had been raised by the petitioner in the trial Court. It is true, in the trial Court, no such contention was taken. The validity of the notice as a proper Notice terminating the tenancy, was the very basis on which the Tahsildar could not under section 28(1) of the Tenancy Act, and, therefore, it was for the Tahsildar to decide, irrespective of whether an objection was taken or not by the tenant, whether the tenancy had been properly terminated on a valid notice. As observed earlier, the Naib Tahsildar, Rajura did actually notice this point and he did hold that the notices were not valid and the tenancies were not properly terminated, though he again committed an error by passing a conditional order of possession. From the revision petition of the petitioner to the Revenue Tribunal, it does appear that this ground was specifically taken as ground No.(iv) in the said revision application to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, but it appears the Revenue Tribunal has not taken cognizance of this point. This ground has also been specifically taken in the present petition as ground No.(iv). In fact a proper termination of the tenancy by a proper notice under section 19(2), (a), (i) of the Tenancy Act, read with the proviso below section 19(2) of the Tenancy Act would be the very basis of an action under section 28(1) of the Tenancy Act and an invalidity of such a notice would go to the root of the whole matter and can be considered properly even in a writ petition. 13. Mr. Ghate then contended that if the notices were held to be not valid notices terminating the tenancies of the petitioner, then the case should be remanded to the trial Court. It was urged that no explanation in this respect had been got from the respondent-landlord in the trial Court, because no objections to the validity of the notices were taken in the trial Court. If this question is to be enquired into, Mr. Ghate contends that it would be necessary to get the explanation of the respondent landlord as to what he meant by saying in the notices that legal proceedings would be taken against the tenant. Therefore, Mr. If this question is to be enquired into, Mr. Ghate contends that it would be necessary to get the explanation of the respondent landlord as to what he meant by saying in the notices that legal proceedings would be taken against the tenant. Therefore, Mr. Ghate requested that in that case would be necessary to remand the case to the trial Court. It is not possible to even accept this contention of Mr. Ghate. The validity of the notices terminating the tenancy has to be determined by the Court upon a proper construction of the recitals of the notices themselves, and not upon the particular manner in Which the landlord chooses to interpret those recitals. 14. In the view taken by me, this writ petition will have to be allowed. The orders passed by all the Revenue Courts below are hereby quashed and instead it shall be ordered that the application of the landlord-respondent for possession filed in the Court of the Tahsildar, Rajura under section 28 read with section 19 of the Tenancy Act, shall stand rejected. The rule is made absolute with costs. Petition allowed. -----