D. G. KARIA, J. ( 1 ) THE short question of law as to interpretation of sections 29 and 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Tenancy Act) arises in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the following facts and circumstances. ( 2 ) THE petitioner Bhikhusha Bhadrashal Fakir purchased the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 416 admeasuring 1 Acre-25 Gunthas at village Sayma Taluka Cambay District Kaira by a registered sale deed on December 23 1970 from the respondent No. 2 who was the original landlord in respect of the said land. The respondent No. 1 Dharamshibhai Rayabhai Patel was the tenant in respect of the aforesaid land and in the proceedings under section 32pp of the Bombay Tenancy Act i. e. Case No. 921 of 1975 the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. Khambhat made a declaration that the respondent No. 1 was the protected tenant. It is not in dispute that the said order of the A. L. T. dated September 30 1975 stood concluded as no appeal nor revision challenging the said order was ever preferred. The Mamlatdar/a. L. T. Khambhat also held that the landlord had dispossessed the respondent No. 1 - tenant from the land in question without any order of the Court or without initiating any proceedings under section 29 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. It was therefore finally concluded that the respondent No. 1 was the protected tenant in respect of the said land. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 2 - landlord did not make any application under section 29 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy Act for possession of the agricultural land in dispute nor the possession of the land was surrendered to the Collector. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 made an application under Sec. 84 of the Bombay Tenancy Act contending that the petitioner herein was unauthorisedly occupying or was wrongfully in possession of the said land and therefore he should be summarily evicted and possession of the land be restored to the respondent No. 1 - tenant. The said application was made to the Assistant Collector Petlad. The Assistant Collector Petlad by his judgment and order dated March 22 1982 held that the respondent No. 1 was completely cultivating the said land on 1. 4. The said application was made to the Assistant Collector Petlad. The Assistant Collector Petlad by his judgment and order dated March 22 1982 held that the respondent No. 1 was completely cultivating the said land on 1. 4. 1957 and he was unlawfully dispossessed from the said land by the landlord and thereafter he had transferred the land to the petitioner by way of sale. The petitioner was thus held to be unlawful transfer of the said land and the Assistant Collector Petlad ordered to evict him summarily from the lands in question. ( 3 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Assistant Collector Petlad preferred Revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 697/82 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal who by the impugned judgment and order dated July 14 1983 dismissed the revision application. The petitioner has challenged the said judgment and order rendered by the Tribunal. ( 4 ) MR. Arvind J Patel the learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal did not appreciate the fact the section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy Act would not apply to the facts of the case for the reasons that the petitioner was the purchaser and the respondent No. 1 claimed to be tenant who had lost his possession and therefore he should have either pursued his remedy under section 29 or under section 32 (1b) of the Bombay Tenancy Act and if those remedies are available to him the provisions of section 84c of the Bombay Tenancy Act would not be applicable and therefore the proceedings under section 84 would clearly be barred and without jurisdiction. In the submission of Mr. Patel the authorities below having failed to appreciate this point which will go to the root of the case the impugned judgment and order is without jurisdiction and void. In order to appreciate the contention raised by Mr. Patel it would be necessary to refer to sections 29 32 and 84 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The relevant provisions of the said sections are as under :" 29 (1) A tenant or an agricultural labourer or artisan entitled to possession of any land or dwelling house under any or the provisions of the Act may apply in writing for such possession to the Mamlatdar. The relevant provisions of the said sections are as under :" 29 (1) A tenant or an agricultural labourer or artisan entitled to possession of any land or dwelling house under any or the provisions of the Act may apply in writing for such possession to the Mamlatdar. The application shall be made in such form as may be prescribed and within a period of two years from the date on which the right to obtain possession of the land or dwelling house is deemed to have accrued to the tenant agricultural labourer or artisan as the case may be. (2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (3a) no landlord shall obtain (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . possession of any land or dwelling house held by a tenant except under an order of the Mamlatdar. For obtaining such order he shall make an application in the prescribed form and within a period of two years from the date on which the right to obtain possession of the land or dwelling house as the case may be is deemed to have accrued to him. (3) On receipt of application under sub-section (1) or (2) the Mamlatdar shall after holding an inquiry pass such order thereon as he deems fit: Provided that where an application under sub-section (2) is made by a landlord in pursuance of the right conferred on him under section 31 the Mamlatdar shall first decided as preliminary issues whether the conditions specified in clauses (c) and (d) of section 31a and sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 31b are satisfied. If the Mamlatdar finds that any of the said conditions is not satisfied he shall reject the application forthwith. (3a) Where a landlord proceeds for termination of the tenancy under sub-section (1) of section 43 then notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the application for possession of the land shall be made to the Collector who shall after holding and inquiry in the prescribed manner pass such order thereon as he deems fit. (3a) Where a landlord proceeds for termination of the tenancy under sub-section (1) of section 43 then notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the application for possession of the land shall be made to the Collector who shall after holding and inquiry in the prescribed manner pass such order thereon as he deems fit. (4) Any person taking possession of any land or dwelling house except in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (1) (2) or as the case may be - (4a) shall be liable to forfeiture of crops if any grown in the land addition to payment of costs as may be directed by the Mamlatdar by the Collector and also to the penalty prescribed in section 81. 32 (1b) Where a tenant who was in possession of land on the appointed day and who on account of his being dispossessed of such land or any part thereof by the landlord at any time before the specified date otherwise than in the manner provided in section 29 or any other provision of this Act is not in possession of such land or any part thereof and such land or part thereof is in the possession of the landlord or his successor-in-interest on the said date and such land or part thereof is not put to a non-agricultural use on or before the said date then the Mamlatdar shall notwithstanding anything contained in the said section 29 or any other provision of this Act either who motu or on an application of the tenant made within the prescribed period hold an inquiry and direct that such land or as the case may be part thereof shall be taken from the possession of the landlord or as the case may be his successor in interest and shall be restored to the tenant and thereafter the provisions of this section and sections 32a to 32r (both inclusive) shall so far as they may be applicable apply thereto subject to the modification that the tenant shall be deemed to have purchased such land or part thereof on the date on which such land or as the case may be part thereof is restored to him: provided that the tenant shall be entitled to restoration or land or part thereof as the case may be under the sub-section only if he gives an undertaking in writing within such period as may be prescribed to cultivate it personally and of so much thereof as together within the other land held by him as owner or tenant shall not exceed the ceiling area: provided further that (i) if the tenant fails to give such undertaking within such prescribed period or if the tenant after giving such undertaking refuses to accept the tenancy or possession of the lands the land the possession of which the landlord or as the case may be his successor-in-interests is not entitled to retain under this sub-section; or (ii) if the tenant gives such undertaking and accepts such tenancy or possession of the land such portion of the land referred to in lause (i) to the restoration of which the tenant would not be entitled under the first proviso shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances and shall be disposed of in the manner provided in sub-section (2) or section 32p "84 Any person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land (a) the transfer or acquisition which either by the act of parties or by the operation of the law is invalid under the provisions of this Act. (b) the management of which has been assumed under the said provisions or (c) to the use and occupation of which he is not entitled under the said provision and the said provisions do not provide for the eviction of such persons may be summarily evicted by the Collector " ( 5 ) SECTION 29 (1) of the Bombay Tenancy Act confers a right on a tenant to apply to the Mamlatdar for possession and section 29 (2) gives a right to the landlord to apply to the Mamlatdar. In both the cases it is the duty of the Mamlatdar to restore possession to the tenant or the landlord as the case may be. It may be notices that whereas sub-section (2) of Sec. 29 is confined to an application by the landlord for possession from his tenant sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 29 is not so confined and therefore tenant can apply for possession against any one including the landlord. But for such an application the condition is that he must be one who is entitled to possession of the land in question under any of the provisions of this Act. Therefore in all the cases where a tenant is entitled to possession of the land under any of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act he has a right under section 29 to apply to the Mamlatdar for restoration of possession against anyone including the landlord and it is the duty of the Mamlatdar to satisfy that the tenant is entitled to such possession under any of the provisions of the Act to restore possession to him. ( 6 ) THE question then is whether a tenant who has a remedy under sec. 29 (1) can still apply to the Collector under section 84. In other words whether the Legislature has provided alternative remedies under both the section to such a tenant ? The term any person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land occurring in sec. 84 includes a landlord who is in unauthorised occupation or is wrongfully in possession. The petitioner without resorting to the proper procedure laid down under the Bombay Tenancy Act to get the possession of the land is undoubtedly an unauthorised occupant in respect of the land in question. 84 includes a landlord who is in unauthorised occupation or is wrongfully in possession. The petitioner without resorting to the proper procedure laid down under the Bombay Tenancy Act to get the possession of the land is undoubtedly an unauthorised occupant in respect of the land in question. It is true that section 84 in express terms limits its application to three types of cases only namely of a person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of the land (a) the transfer or acquisition of which etc. is invalid under the Act or (b) the management of which has been assumed under the Act or (c) to the use and occupation of which he is entitled under the provisions of the Act. The said provisions do not provide for the eviction of such person. ( 7 ) IN the present case the respondent No. 1 being a lawful tenant as cultivating the land in question on 1. 4. 1957 was entitled to occupy and use the land under clause (c) of section 84 (1) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. In view of this clear position I do not find any substance in the submission of the Mr. Patel. Mr. Patel placed reliance on the case of Vallabhbhai Nathabhai vs. Bai Jivi and Ors. 10 GLR 829. The Supreme Court has referred to two unreported decisions-one by this High Court and the other by the High Court of Bombay in para 11 of the said judgment. In Shankerlal vs. Haria Vagha Spl. C. A. 8 of 1961 which was decided by this Court on August 22 1961 the facts were as under :- One Chandrasingh and his brothers owned Survey Nos. 23/2 23 and 26/5. In 1956-57 opponent no. 2 surrendered these lands to Chandrasingh who personally cultivated them. Until 1955 opponent 1 cultivated survey No. 26/5. He thereafter surrendered that Survey number to Chandrasingh and his brother who personally cultivated it thereafter. The Mamlatdar admittedly had held an inquiry in respect of these surrenders under sec. 15. On January 29 1959 Chandrasingh and his brothers sold these lands to the petitioners and the petitioners thereafter cultivated them in 1959-60. In 1959 opponents Nos. 1 and 2 applied to the Collector under sec. 84 and the Collector ordered restrorains of possession to opponents 1 and 2. 15. On January 29 1959 Chandrasingh and his brothers sold these lands to the petitioners and the petitioners thereafter cultivated them in 1959-60. In 1959 opponents Nos. 1 and 2 applied to the Collector under sec. 84 and the Collector ordered restrorains of possession to opponents 1 and 2. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal rejected a revision application filed by the petitioners against the said order. In a writ petition under Art. 227 the petitioners raised two contentions before the High Court: (1) that they were not in unauthorised occupation or wrongfully in possession as they derived title from the owners their vendors and (2) that in any event the opponents had a remedy under sec. 29 (1) and therefore could not have recourse to sec. 84. As regards the first contention the High Court held the surrenders by opponents 1 and 2 not being in writing and unverified were not binding on them the relationship of tenant and landlord had not therefore terminated and opponents 1 and 2 were entitled to possession of the lands. That was the position which obtained on January 28 1959 when Chandrasingh and his brothers purported to sell the lands to the petitioners. The petitioners therefore were in unauthorised possession as Chandrasingh and his brothers were not entitled to possession and could not transfer possession to the petitioners. The High Court also held that the said sale was contrary to sec. 84 and therefore invalid and did not create any right as to ownership or possession in favour of the petitioners. The possession of the petitioners therefore was unauthorised and wrongful and sec. 84 applied. ( 8 ) THE ratio of the case of Shanker Raoji (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case it is clear that the possession of the petitioner in respect of the lands in question was unauthorised and wrongful and therefore there is nothing wrong or illegal in the respondent No. 1 resorting to sec. 84 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. ( 9 ) MR. A. J. Patel then invited my attention to the case of Mohmadkhan Jamiyatkhan vs. Dadamiyan Mohmadmiyan reported in 11 GLR 595. This Court held that the settled position in regard to the application for summary eviction under sec. 84 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. ( 9 ) MR. A. J. Patel then invited my attention to the case of Mohmadkhan Jamiyatkhan vs. Dadamiyan Mohmadmiyan reported in 11 GLR 595. This Court held that the settled position in regard to the application for summary eviction under sec. 84 or the Bombay Tenancy Act is that because the tenancy authorities have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the question under sec. 70 (b) whether a person is a tenant or not even a plea raised by the defendant excludes the jurisdiction even of a competent Civil Court which is otherwise competent to decide the suit as it would have no jurisdiction to decide the issue. The only authority in the State to decide the question whether a person is a tenant or not of the agricultural land is the Mamlatdar under sec. 70 In that view of the matter even the Prant Officer under sec. 84 would have no jurisdiction to decide the issue raised before him that the person was a tenant or not. This authority will not be helpful to the petitioner for the reason that respondent No. 1 has already been held to be a tenant by the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. in the proceedings under sec. 32pp of the Bombay Tenancy Act on September 30 1975 and the said order of the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. was not challenged by the petitioner or respondent No. 2 and stood concluded. Thus the Assistant Collector Patlad rightly considered the tenants application under section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy Act for summary eviction and did not decide if the respondent No. 1 was a tenant or not inasmuch as it was decided by the order dated September 30 1975 as aforesaid. In that view of the matter the facts of the case of Mohmadkhan (supra) are not applicable to the present case. In the above view of the matter I find no substance in the petition. The petition is therefore liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief stands vacated. Petition Dismissed. .