JUDGMENT - DESHMUKH B.N., J.:---The petitioners, who are the tenants, have filed this petition challenging the orders of termination of tenancy and possession, passed against them in the proceedings under section 28 read with 32 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 2. The respondent landlord had filed application under section 32 read with 28 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, for possession on the ground of three defaults committed in payment of rent by the petitioners. The Additional Tahsildar granted the application of the landlord for possession of the land and also for payment of Rs. 675/- as arrears of rent. The order of the Additional Tahsildar is confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Collector and also in revision by the Revenue Tribunal. 3. The concurrent findings of fact are challenged in the present writ petition by the tenants. 4. Shri Joshi, the learned Counsel for petitioners, contended that the authorities below, have committed an error in holding the validity of the notice of termination given under section 19(2) of the Tenancy Act. His further contention is that the intimation required to be given by the landlord, under section 28(1) proviso, is not within time, prescribed by that section. The order of eviction and possession is, according to him, contrary to the provisions of sections 19(2) and 28(1), proviso, of the Tenancy Act. He has further contended that the petitioners tried to make payment by money orders, but the landlord has refused to accept the rent. Therefore, one of the tenants had applied to the Tahsildar for accepting the rent. As no orders were passed on the application, the rent could not be deposited in Tahsil Office. In these circumstances, he argued that the tenants are not in default of payment of rent. The order of possession, passed against tenants is, therefore, illegal. 5. It is not disputed that the defaults said to have been committed by the tenants, are for the years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1978-79. Though the default is also alleged for the year 1979-80, that default is not made a ground for obtaining possession. But the three defaults, of which intimations are given, are for the years commencing from 1975-76 to 1978-79. 6. Though the default is also alleged for the year 1979-80, that default is not made a ground for obtaining possession. But the three defaults, of which intimations are given, are for the years commencing from 1975-76 to 1978-79. 6. The intimation for the default, committed in the year 1975-76 is given on 3-11-1976; for the default of 1976-77, intimation is given on 1-11-1977 while for the default of 1978-79, the intimation is given on 3-11-1979. 7. What is required to be considered in the present case is , whether the intimations are in conformity with the provisions of proviso to section 28(1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 8. Section 28(1) deals with the relief against termination of tenancy for non- payment of rent and it states that, "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 land holder the rent in arrears 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 not been terminated: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any tenant, whose tenancy is terminated for non-payment of rent, if he 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 land holder had given intimation to the tenant of the default within a period of six months of each default." We are mainly concerned with the provisions, contained in the proviso to this section. The proviso provides that the relief against termination of tenancy for non payment of rent, will not apply, if the tenant has failed to pay rent for any three years, within the period prescribed in sub-clause (1) to Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 19 and secondly, the landlord has given intimation to the tenant of the default within a period of six month of each default. This proviso, therefore, provides consideration of two periods, one for the payment of rent and secondly, the period for giving intimation of each default. 9. Section 19 deals with the termination of tenancy. Section 19(2) is relevant in the present case. The provision reads thus- "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 last instalment of land revenue due for the land concerned in that year, the rent of such land for that year." By virtue of this provision, the landlord can terminate the tenancy of a tenant, if the tenant has failed to pay in any year, within 15 days, from the day fixed under the Land Revenue Act, for the payment of last instalment of land revenue, due for the year concerned in that year, the rent of such land for that year. It is also necessary to refer to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 19 which provides 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 land holder gives six months' notice in writing, intimating his decision to terminate the tenancy and the grounds for such termination. 10. This aspect of the matter is considered by the Revenue Tribunal and what is observed in the judgment if connection with this provision, regarding payment of rent, is that--- "Admittedly, the period given for payment of rent is 15 days after 30th April of concerned year. According to section 28, if the default persists for six months, it is termed as a default and in this case, more than three defaults are there. By proviso to section 28(1), only intimations are necessary of each default within a period of six months of each default." 11. The crucial question, which is agitated before me, is which is the date on which the tenant can be said to have committed the default. By proviso to section 28(1), only intimations are necessary of each default within a period of six months of each default." 11. The crucial question, which is agitated before me, is which is the date on which the tenant can be said to have committed the default. Section 19(2)(a) provides that the land holder can terminate the tenancy of a tenant, if he has failed to pay, in any year, within 15 days from the day fixed under the Land Revenue Act for the payment of last instalment of Land Revenue due for the land concerned in that year, the rent of such land for that year. 12. Shri Joshi had invited my attention to the provisions of Maharashtra Realisation of Land Revenue Rules, 1967. Rule 3 of these Rules provides for classification of villages for payment of land revenue, while Rule 4 provides for the days, on which land revenue is to be paid and it reads that, subject to the provisions of section 170, land revenue payable in respect of the lands, shall be paid in one instalment only and the dates on which it shall be paid, shall be the 15th January in Class I (Kharif) villages and the 15th April in Class II (Rabi) villages. The proviso to this sub-rule empowers the Collector, with the sanction of the Commissioner, to fix such other dates, as he may deem expedient, according to the circumstances of the season and of the villages concerned and the character of the crops generally sown there in and thereupon, the land revenue due upon non-agricultural land, shall also be paid in such district or part thereof, on the dates so fixed. 13. According to Shri Joshi, therefore, the last day of the year, on which the land revenue is required to be paid is, as per these Rules, 15th April and not 30th April as presumed by the Revenue Tribunal. 14. On the contrary, Shri Loya contended that the provisions of the Land Revenue Code and Rules, framed thereunder, do not apply in view of the provisions of sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 19 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. This sub-clauses speaks of failure to pay within 15 days from the day fixed under the Land Revenue Act for the payment of the last instalment etc. This sub-clauses speaks of failure to pay within 15 days from the day fixed under the Land Revenue Act for the payment of the last instalment etc. Therefore, the day mentioned in the Land Revenue Act will have to be considered and not the day, as mentioned in the Rules framed under the Land Revenue Code. He has invited my attention to the Hyderabad Land Revenue Rules of 1951, which are framed under the provisions of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act. The material rule is Rule 40, which related to fixation of dates, for payment of land revenue. This rule provides that- The following dates are fixed for the payment of land revenue to Government: Kharif and Rabi Crops ... From 1st to 21st January; Rabi Crop ... From 1st to 21st April; Tabi Crop ... From 16th to 30th June; According to these Rules, the land revenue is to be paid for Kharif crops from 1st to 21st January; for Rabi crop from 1st to 21st April and for Tabi crops from 16th to 30th June. So according to Shri Loya, therefore, the last date for the land of Rabi Crop is from 21st April of that year. According to him, the intimations are respectively given on 3-11-1976, 1-11-1977 and 3-11-1979 and 23-9-1980 and are within six months of the default, if 21st April of each year is taken to be the last date for payment of the land revenue for that year and if 15 days' time granted for payment to the tenant under section 19 from that last date if taken into consideration. His argument, therefore, consists of two parts; firstly the last date for payment of land revenue, as per the Land Revenue Act, will be the 21st April of that year. In addition, 15 days' time is granted to the tenant to pay the land revenue and those 15 days are required to be added to the last date i.e. 21st April of that year. So, the period mentioned for intimation will commence from 7th May of that year and the notice given in the first week of November of that particular year will be within the period, prescribed by section 28 of the said Act. 15. So, the period mentioned for intimation will commence from 7th May of that year and the notice given in the first week of November of that particular year will be within the period, prescribed by section 28 of the said Act. 15. In considering the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 19, which creates a right in the landlord to terminate the tenancy, there is no doubt that sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 19 refers to the day fixed under the Land Revenue Act for payment of last instalment of land revenue, but the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code was promulgated in the year 1966 by Maharashtra Act No. 41 of 1966. Section 336 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code provides for repeal and savings and on the commencement of this Code, it says that certain laws are repealed. In the list of repealed enactments, the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli is mentioned. 16. Even though there is a reference to Land Revenue Act in section 19(2)(a), as the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act is repealed by the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code in the year 1966, the day fixed for the payment of last instalment of land revenue, will have to be determined on the basis of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code ad not with reference to the Land Revenue Act of 1317 Fasli, which is already repealed. 17. Section 9 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 provides that after the commencement of the Bombay General Clauses Act , any Bombay Act or Maharashtra Act, repeals and re-enacts with or without modification, any provision of a former enactment or any other instrument, to the provision so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as reference to the provision so re-enacted. As the provision regarding payment of the last instalment of the land revenue with reference to a fixed date, on the basis of the Land Revenue Act, is repealed and the provision is replaced by the new enactment under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the provision as enacted after repeal, will have to be considered in view of the provisions of section 9 of the General Clauses Act. 18. 18. Naturally, therefore, after coming into force of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code in the year 1966, if the land holder wants to terminate the tenancy on the ground that the tenant has failed to pay in any year within 15 days from the day fixed for the payment of the last instalment of land revenue, the day fixed will have to be considered as per the amended provisions, in preference to the old provisions under the Land Revenue Act. The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code has come into effect in the year 1966. The tenancies, in the present case, are terminated in the year 1976 i.e. after coming into force of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and intimations are issued thereafter. The day fixed for payment of land revenue under the Land Revenue Act will have no application after the commencement of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The day fixed for the payment of land revenue under the Maharashtra Realisation of Land Revenue Rules, 1967, will govern the field and as per these Rules, 15th of April is the last date prescribed for payment of the last instalment of the land revenue. 19. The intimations are admittedly given in the first week of November of that year. Whether these intimations are within the period, prescribed under section 28 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, will have to be considered by treating 15th April as the last date, fixed for payment of the last instalment of land revenue. 20. The default, therefore, will be actually completed by the tenant if he has not paid the rent upto the last day fixed for the payment of last instalment of the land revenue. Six months', period if intimation has to be construed as commencing from the day of default i.e. from 15th of April of that year. However, even assuming in the present case, that the date of default is after 15 days from 15th of April of that year, the default would be complete in any event of 30th of April of that year. Six months' period will come to an end by the end of October of that year. The intimation given after 31st of October of that year cannot be construed to be intimation within six months of such default. In the present case, the intimations are given by the land holder for each year. Six months' period will come to an end by the end of October of that year. The intimation given after 31st of October of that year cannot be construed to be intimation within six months of such default. In the present case, the intimations are given by the land holder for each year. Such intimations are given on 3-11-1976, 1-11-1977 and 3-11-1979. All these intimations are given after 31st of October of each year. So the intimations are given not within six months of each default, but they are given subsequently in contravention of the provisions of section 28(1), proviso. As the intimations are not in conformity with the provisions of the said proviso, the tenant is entitled for relief against termination as mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 28. 21. I am told at the Bar that, as directed by this Court, the stage of admission, the tenant has deposited in Tahsil, an amount of Rs. 675/- towards the arrears today. If the tenant has not so deposited the said amount, the tenant is entitled to deposit it within a period of 90 days from today. I, therefore, direct the petitioners that, if they have not deposited the arrears, as directed by this Court in Tahsil office, the arrears should be deposited within 90 days from today. If the amount is already deposited, the tenant need not deposit afresh. 22. Shri Joshi has further contended that there is evidence of refusal to accept the rent by the landlord, on record. According to him the application given by the tenant to the Tahsildar, seeking directions to deposit the rent in Tahsil Office, shows that the tenant has expressed his desire to pay the rent in Tahsil Office, as the landlord was refusing to accept the rent. Shri Loya contended that this aspect of the matter is considered by the Tahsildar. I find from the record that the document is not properly appreciated. However it is unnecessary to go into other questions, arising in the matter, as I have already held that the intimations are not within six months of each default. The intimations are in contravention of the provisions of the said proviso. The other points are not required to be considered in the decision of this writ petition. 23. In the result, I set aside the orders of eviction, passed against the petitioners tenants and make Rule absolute accordingly. The intimations are in contravention of the provisions of the said proviso. The other points are not required to be considered in the decision of this writ petition. 23. In the result, I set aside the orders of eviction, passed against the petitioners tenants and make Rule absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute accordingly. -----