D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is defendants Second Appeal. ( 2 ) THE brief facts giving rise to this Appeal are as under : the suit was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for eviction of the defendantappellant from the disputed accommodation situated in village Limkheda. It was alleged to be in the tenancy of the defendant-appellant on monthly rent of Rs. 50. 00. The tenancy was determined by a notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of property Act. The premises was not vacated and arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 325. 00 were also not paid, hence the suit was filed. The plaintiff pleaded that the bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 is not applicable in village Limkheda. The suit was, therefore, filed under the provision of the Transfer of Property Act under the general law. ( 3 ) THE appellant resisted the suit on the ground that he is protected tenant inasmuch as Bombay Rent Act is applicable to the disputed premises situated in village Limkheda. Validity of notice was challenged. Dispute about the standard rent was also raised. ( 4 ) THE only question before the trial Court was whether the appellant was a protected tenant. The trial Court found that the appellant was not a protected tenant and the Bombay Rent Act is not applicable to the premises in dispute. ( 5 ) THE appellate Court also took the same view. Both the Courts below found that the notice was valid. The decree for ejectment and arrears of rent was, therefore, passed by the trial Court which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. It is, therefore, this Second Appeal. ( 6 ) FOLLOWING substantial question of law was formulated in this Appeal :"whether the Courts below erred in holding that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act did not protect the appellant as they failed to appreciate the definition of "village" in sec. 3 (16) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1933 read with Sec. 325 of the Gujarat panchayats Act, 1961. " ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsels for the appellant and the respondents were heard in support of their contentions. 3 (16) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1933 read with Sec. 325 of the Gujarat panchayats Act, 1961. " ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsels for the appellant and the respondents were heard in support of their contentions. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the bombay Rent Act of 1947 is applicable to the premises in dispute, whereas the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents has been that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings that the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 is not applicable and this finding does not suffer from any error of law. Hence, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. ( 8 ) IT may be mentioned that similar controversy arose before me in three Second appeal Nos. 97 of 1983, 98 of 1983 and 99 of 1983 decided by me on 19-3-1998 where the property was situated in village Limkheda and for the reasons stated in the common judgment this Court held that the property is governed by the Bombay rent Act, 1947. Since the matter has been concluded by a common judgment in three second Appeals decided by this Court, the same view is to be taken in this Appeal also. ( 9 ) IT is necessary to mention the short reasons why the view taken by the two courts below is erroneous. ( 10 ) THE lower appellate Court has relied upon the Notification No. GH/j/9/78/ (A)BRA/1871/g/998/n/ (1) dated 4-3-1978 issued by the Gujarat State. This notification inter alia provides that the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 was applied to the premises let out for residence, business and trade situated in an area of Gram panchayat, Nagar Panchayat, Nagar Palika and Municipal Corporation of the Gujarat state having population of 5,000 and above as per Census Report of 1971, except the areas in which provisions of said Part-VII are applicable for the purposes specified in Col. 3 against this serial number under the provision of the said sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6. ( 11 ) IT is thus clear from the above notification that the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 shall apply to the area of Gram Panchayat and the property let out and lying in such area having a population of 5,000 and above shall be governed by the Bombay Rent act, 1947. (2) of sec. 6. ( 11 ) IT is thus clear from the above notification that the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 shall apply to the area of Gram Panchayat and the property let out and lying in such area having a population of 5,000 and above shall be governed by the Bombay Rent act, 1947. ( 12 ) IT is not disputed that Limkheda Group Gram Panchayat was constituted which consisted of six villages, i. e. , Limkheda, Palli, Andhari, Nana Hatidhara, Mota hatidhara and Bhatinda having population of 1,322, 1,265, 704, 571, 779 and 389 according to Census Report of 1971. The total population of the six villages, according to the above Census Report of 1971, was 5,030, i. e. , it exceeded the limit of 5,000. The question is whether the population of village Limkheda alone is to be taken into consideration or the population of all the villages falling within the gram Panchayat of Limkheda Group. For this certain provisions of Gujarat panchayats Act, 1961 have to be kept in mind. Section 3 of the Act provides for establishment of Panchayat in each district. Such Panchayat is to be called Gram panchayat for each Gram and Nagar Panchayat for each Nagar, Taluka Panchayat for each Taluka and District Panchayat for the District. Thus, from Sec. 3 it is clear that for each Gram a Gram Panchayat is to be established. ( 13 ) THE Panchayat is defined under Sec. 2 (21) of the Act which means Gram panchayat, Nagar Panchayat, Taluka Panchayat or District Panchayat. Gram panchayat is defined under Sec. 2 (12) of the Act which means Gram Panchayat constituted or deemed to be constituted under this Act. Gram has been defined under sec. 2 (11) of the Act which means Gram formed under this Act. ( 14 ) SECTION 9 of the Act further provides for declaration of Nagar and Gram. It says that after making such inquiry as may be prescribed, the State Government may, by notification in the official gazette declare any local area comprising revenue village or group of revenue villages or hamlets forming part of a revenue village or such other administrative unit or part thereof to be a gram if the population of such local area does not exceed 10,000 as is provided under Sec. 9 (1) (b) of the Act. It is further clear from this section that a Gram may consist of a revenue village or group of revenue villages having population not exceeding 10,000 in such local area. Thus, if Limkheda Group Gram Panchayat was established having six villages within its jurisdiction it can safely be said that the entire area within Limkheda Group Gram panchayat is to be taken into account so also the population of such area within the ambit of six villages. The emphasis is thus on the area falling within the Gram panchayat or the Group Gram Panchayat and also on population of such local area hence no contrary interpretation is possible to Sec. 9 (1) (b) of the Act. If Sec. 3 of the Act contemplates establishment of a Gram Panchayat for each Gram and for administrative reason or convenience it is not possible for establishment of Panchayat in each Gram having lesser population then by notification under Sec. 9 of the Act the State Government can declare group of revenue villages or even hamlets forming part of a revenue village to be a Gram. The use of words "other administrative unit or part thereof" under Sec. 9 of the Act further indicates that for administrative purposes one unit of Group Gram Panchayat can be formed and it was so formed in the instant case in respect of six villages and the Gram Panchayat of the aforesaid six villages was named as Limkheda Group Gram Panchayat. There is then no reason to exclude the population of the other villages which obviously fall within the area of Limkheda Group Gram Panchayat. If the entire population of the six villages falling within the area of Limkheda Group Gram Panchayat according to Census report of 1971 is taken into consideration the figure was 5,030 on the relevant date which exceeded figure of 5,000 and as such in view of notification dated 4-3-1978 the property in suit situated within the area of Limkheda village shall be governed by Bombay Rent Act of 1947. The view to the contrary taken by the two Courts below, being erroneous, is liable to be struck down. ( 15 ) THE result, therefore, is that the Appeal succeeds and the decree for eviction, etc. passed under the General Law by the Civil Court cannot be maintained. The view to the contrary taken by the two Courts below, being erroneous, is liable to be struck down. ( 15 ) THE result, therefore, is that the Appeal succeeds and the decree for eviction, etc. passed under the General Law by the Civil Court cannot be maintained. The suit should have been filed before the Rent Court and since it was not done the proper course is to set aside the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below and remand the Suit No. 30 of 1978 to the Court of Civil Judge (J. D.) at Baria with direction to return the plaint to the plaintiffs-respondents for presentation to the proper Rent court. ( 16 ) WITH the above observation the Appeal is allowed. The judgments and decrees of the two Courts below are set aside. Civil Suit No. 30 of 1978 is remanded to the Civil Judge (J. D.), Baria, with direction to return the plaint to the plaintiffsrespondents for presentation to the proper Rent Court. In the circumstances of the case the cost of this Appeal shall be borne by the parties. .