ORDER 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated 27th June, 1972 passed in special civil application No. 1804 of 1968. 2. The appellant herein has claimed herself to be the landlady of a parcel of land in a village in District Kolhapur, Maharashtra, details of which are available in the Judgment under appeal. The respondeed under Section 43-B of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. The claim was (1) of Section Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, who did not interfere in the views of the Dy. Collector.tillers day i.e. on 1.4.1957 by virtue of Sections 32 and 32-G of the said Act. The first Court of Awal Karkun decided in favour of the respondents and dismissed the petition holding that the respondents have become owners of the land on the Tillers day. The Appellate Court of the Dy. Collector however held otherwise on appeal by the appellant and remitted the matter back to the Awal Karkun for determining the quantum of reasonable rent in accordance with the provisions of Section 43-B of the Act. Now, it the Constitution whereat three points were raised which may be enumerated as follows: "(1) The Dy. Collector of the Tribunal erred in law in holding that although the land was in fact the jirayat land on the tillers day, the tenants did not become owners on the tillers reasonable rent as determined under the following clauses:- (1) A landlord or a tent of such land may take an application in writing to the Mamlatdar for determination of the reasonable rent in respect of such land. (2) On receipt of such application, the Mamlatdar shall give notice thereof to the other party to the lease and after holding an inquiry shall determine the reasonable rent. (3) In determining the reasonable rent regard shall be had to the following factors. (a) profits of agriculture of similar lands in the locality. (b) prices in the locality of the particular crop for the growing of which the land is leased. (c) the improvements made in the land by the lessee or the landlord. (d) the assessment payable in respect of land. of articles made out of the produce of the land leased. (g) such other factors as may be prescribed. (b) prices in the locality of the particular crop for the growing of which the land is leased. (c) the improvements made in the land by the lessee or the landlord. (d) the assessment payable in respect of land. of articles made out of the produce of the land leased. (g) such other factors as may be prescribed. (4) The reasonable rent determined by the Mamlatdar under Clause (2) shall, with effect from, 1 (the date specified by the Mamlatdar) in that behalf, be deemed to be the rent fixed under the lease in lieu of the rent, if any, agreed between the parties". 5. The High Court found the two provisions to be conflicting and viewed that an application under Section 43-B did not lie in face of the provisions of Section 30. We, on our part, can hardly see any justification for such a view when the provisions of Section 43-B start with a non obstante clause and are dependent on Section 43-A. As is plain from its language in Clause (1), both the landlord as well as the tenant can apply in the manner provided for having reasonable rent determined. Significantly, in order to determine the reasonable rent the Mamlatdar to whom an application is required to be made, is to have due regard to factors mentioned in Clause (4). Clause (4) further provides that the reasonable rent determined by the Mamlatdar under Clause (2) shall be payable w.e.f. the date specified by the Mamlatdar in that behalf and that shall be deemed to be the rent fixed under the lease in lieu of the rent, if any, agreed between the parties. It is thus obvious that Section 43-B is an on-going provision and not a damp squib. The object of the provision is to substitute reasonable rent in place of the contractual rent, should there be any. It is invokable both by the landlord as well as by the tenant. It would not be wrong to say that the provision is beneficial to either party. Thus it seems to us that the High Court was in error in shadowing Section 43-B with the provisions of Section 30. The provisions of Section 43-B start with a non obstante clause and of Section 30 barely with a saving clause. The former provision obviously has an element of predomenancy. Thus it seems to us that the High Court was in error in shadowing Section 43-B with the provisions of Section 30. The provisions of Section 43-B start with a non obstante clause and of Section 30 barely with a saving clause. The former provision obviously has an element of predomenancy. Therefore on coming to the view that the High Court was in error in upholding the third objection raised before it, we upset its judgment and order and remit the matter back to it for decision on the other two questions, left undecided. 6. As is evident from the fact narration there has been a split in some ways but the twain must meet. As per the decision of the Tribunal and the Deputy Collector and matter stands remitted back to the Awal Karkun for deciding the quantum of reasonable rent on the basis that the respondents have not become owners of the land on the tillers day and the tenancy was subsisting in terms of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 43-A. These are the two subjects on which objection was raised before the High Court. It is thus left to the High Court to decide whether it would like to await the decision of the Aval Karkun on the question of reasonable rent and then decide the matter before it or shall it go ahead with the decision of the petition by itself letting the question of reasonableness of the rent to take its own course. In either situation the High Court has the discretion but as said earlier somewhere it has to have a confluencing point. 7. Having observed so we allow this appeal on the above terms but without any order as to costs.