D. G. KARIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the decision dated June 7, 1985 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 2030/82 quashing the decision of the Deputy collector, Nadiad, dated October 30, 1982, in Tenancy Appeal No. 118/82 and restoring the decision of the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. dated July 20,1982 in Tenancy Case No. 1/81. ( 2 ) THE original petitioner claimed to be a lawful tenant in respect of the lands-survey no. 775/1 and 775/7, admeasuring OA-18 Gunthas and OA-13 Gunthas respectively, situated in village Anara, Taluka Kapadwanj and sought to be put in possession of the said land by filing application under section 32 (1b) of the Bombay Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short "the Bombay Tenancy Act") before the mamlatdar and A. L. T. , Kapadwanj. According to the petitioners, who are the heirs and legal representatives of the original petitioner-deceased Balwantbhai Lallubhai, the deceased Balwanthai Lallubhai was cultivating the land on June 15, 1955 and prior thereto. One Jiviben, daughter of Ganpatbhai was the original owner of the said land. The tenancy proceedings in respect of the said land were initiated in the year 1961 under section 32g of the Bombay Tenancy Act. However, the said proceedings were postponed as the landlady was a widow. According to the petitioners, they were dispossessed of the land in question somewhere in 1971-72. On the specified date, i. e. on March 3, 1973, jiviben was in possession of the land in question. The respondent herein, however, appears to have obtained the possession of the land in the year 1975, as per the record of rights. He got the possession of the land after the death of Jiviben. Tiviben had no direct heirs. The present petitioners, therefore, invoked the jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar and a. L. T. under section 32 (1b) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, as aforesaid. In the suo motu inquiry, Mamlatdar, Kapadvanj, decided on September 26, 1979 in tenancy Case No. 14/78, that the deceased Balwantbhai was the tenant of the suit land. ( 3 ) THE respondents herein had preferred an appeal No. 16/80 against the aforesaid judgment of the Mamlatdar holding the deceased Balwantbhai as the tenant of the suit land. In the suo motu inquiry, Mamlatdar, Kapadvanj, decided on September 26, 1979 in tenancy Case No. 14/78, that the deceased Balwantbhai was the tenant of the suit land. ( 3 ) THE respondents herein had preferred an appeal No. 16/80 against the aforesaid judgment of the Mamlatdar holding the deceased Balwantbhai as the tenant of the suit land. The Deputy Collector, by his judgment dated February 20, 1981, allowed the said appeal and remanded the case for fresh inquiry. On remand, the case was renumbered as tenancy Case No. 1/81. The learned Mamlatdar, by his judgment dated July 10, 1982, held that the first respondent cultivated the land on the specified date (3-3- 1973) and jiviben was not in possession nor she cultivated the land before 3-3-1973. The mamlatdar, therefore, held that the deceased Balwantbhai was not entitled to get the possession of the land under section 32 (1b) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. ( 4 ) THE petitioners, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred Tenancy Appeal no. 118/82 before the Deputy Collector, Nadiad, who by his judgment and order dated october 30, 1982, allowed the appeal and ordered that the deceased Balwantbhai was entitled to take possession of the land. He, therefore, ordered that the possession of the suit land should be handed over to the petitioners. ( 5 ) THE first respondent, feeling aggrieved by the said judgment allowing the appeal, preferred the aforesaid Revision Application No. 4030/82 before the Gujarat Revenue tribunal. The Tribunal, by its impugned judgment, allowed the revision application, quashing the order of the Deputy Collector and restoring that of the Mamlatdar. It is against this judgment of the Tribunal that the petitioners have approached this Court. ( 6 ) MR. H. M. Parikh, learned Advocate for the petitioners, contended that the Tribunal allowed the Revision Application mainly relying upon the case of Nathubhai Gandabhai vs. Bhagubhai Jethabhai, reported in 16 G. L. R. page 116. However, the said decision in case of Nathubhai was overruled by the judgment in case of Motibhai Panchabhai khristi vs. Maganbhai Desaibhai Patel reported in 22 G. L. R. page 107, holding that nathubhais case did not lay down correct law. Thus, the Tribunal committed error of law in disbelieving that the petitioners were lawful tenants and were entitled to get possession of the land in question. Thus, the Tribunal committed error of law in disbelieving that the petitioners were lawful tenants and were entitled to get possession of the land in question. This Court (Coram : N. H. Bhatt, J. (as he was then) in the case of nathubhai Gandabhai (supra) (16 G. L. T. page 116 and 21 G. L. R. page 336) held that on scrutiny of section 40 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, in the light of all attendant circumstances, it is inevitable to hold that for the purpose of sec. 32 (1b), a tenants successor in-interest cannot have recourse to sec. 40 for the purpose of reaping that benign provision. According to the ratio laid down in this case by the learned Single judge, section 32 (1b) applied only to the tenant himself and to its benign benefits could not be extended to his heirs in terms of the specific language of section 40 (2) of the bombay Tenancy Act, inasmuch the said provision of section 40 (2) would have no application so as to make the heir a dispossessed tenant and as such the heir would not be entitled to the right reserved for the original tenant under section 32 (1b ). The learned single Judge has held that section 40 contemplated that concerned tenant must be in possession and cultivation of the land at the time of his demise. ( 7 ) THIS Court (Coram: M. P. Thakkar J. (as he was then), however, in case of bhailalbhai Govindbhai vs. Bainanduba, wd/o. Gulabsing Mohansing, reported in 18 g. L. R. page 901,took the view that the provisions of section 40 of the Bombay Tenancy act enured for the benefit of heirs of the deceased-tenant and as such the heirs could apply under section 32 (1b) of the Act for necessary reliefs. In view of the aforesaid conflicting views, the matter was referred to a larger Bench consisting of S. H. Sheth and s. B. Majmudar, JJ. (as they were then) to resolve the controversy arising out of the aforesaid conflicting views expressed in 18 G. L. R. page 901 and 21 G. L. R. page 366. In view of the aforesaid conflicting views, the matter was referred to a larger Bench consisting of S. H. Sheth and s. B. Majmudar, JJ. (as they were then) to resolve the controversy arising out of the aforesaid conflicting views expressed in 18 G. L. R. page 901 and 21 G. L. R. page 366. The division Bench of this Court in case of Motibhai Panchabhai Khristi vs. Maganbhai desaibhai Patel, reported in 22 G. L. R. page 107, resolved the said controversy holding that section 40 of the Bombay Tenancy Act clearly mentions that once a tenant dies, the landlord is deemed to have continued the tenancy on the same terms and conditions to such heir of heirs of the deceased tenant as may be willing to continue the tenancy. Thus, the statutory tenancy of the deceased tenant enures for the benefit of his willing heirs. Sec. 40 operates on its own and automatically. Consequently, the tenancy rights of the deceased tenant by operation of sec. 40 are available to his willing heirs and they step in the shoes of the deceased-tenant Once sec. 40 (1) is attracted on the death of a tenant and once his tenancy right gets vested in his willing heirs, there is no reason why such willing heirs cannot take the benefit of sec. 32 (1b) and cannot apply under the said provision for fixation of purchase-price. Consequently, even though the deceased tenant whose case is covered by sec. 32 (1b) may have died before he himself could make an application under sec. 32 (1b), there appears no rhyme or reason to contemplate a situation where his heirs who automatically step in his shoes by the statutory operation of sec. 40 (1), cannot maintain an application for restoration of possession of the land from the landlord, as they are statutorily clothed with all rights of the deceased tenant as per the combined operation of sec. 32 (1b) and sec. 40 (1) of the Tenancy Act It was thus concluded that the heirs of the deceased-tenant are entitled to make an application under section 32 (1b) of the Act and to carry it to its logical conclusion. Thus, in facts of the present case, the above ratio laid down in case of Motibhai Panchabhai Khristi (supra) clearly applies to the situation in this case. Thus, in facts of the present case, the above ratio laid down in case of Motibhai Panchabhai Khristi (supra) clearly applies to the situation in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in applying the case which is no longer a good law. In the above view of the matter, the petition succeeds. The impugned decision of the gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. 2030/82, dated June 7, 1985, is quashed and set aside and that of the Deputy Collector, Nadiad, dated October 30,1982, in tenancy Case No. 118/82 is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute. No order as to costs. .