JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is a Public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and it owns agricultural land at Mouza Rangaon, Tq. Malkapur, District Buldhana, including Survey No. 32/1, Gat No. 53, admeasuring 3 hectare and 16R, which is the subject matter of this petition. One Shri Gunnusingh Dhondusingh, resident of Rangaon was the tenant in possession of the land in question, who died in the year 1991. The petitioner Trust filed an application for grant of exemption under Section 129(b) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short "the said Act'), which was allowed on 08.04.1968 and the land in question is included in the said certificate of exemption. The revision application filed by the legal heir was dismissed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 23.09.1974 and it attained the finality. 2. After the death of the original tenant Shri Gunnusingh Dhondusingh in the year 1991, the Trust filed an application under Section 120 of the said Act for summery eviction of his L.R. from the land in question. The Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 17.03.2007 rejected the said application and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal rejected the revision on 03.12.2013. Hence, the Trust is before this Court. 3. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal as well as the Sub Divisional Officer have taken a view that the certificate of exemption is always prospective in operation and if it is found that the legal heirs of the tenant are in possession of the exempted land, then their possession cannot be held to be illegal, as they have inherited the tenancy right of their predecessor before the certificate of exemption was obtained. 4. The point is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court delivered in Writ Petition No. 5383 of 2014 in case of Vidarbha Maharogi Seva Mandal, Tapovan, Amaravati vrs. The Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, and others, on 23.02.2016. In paragraph Nos. 33 and 34 of the said decision, it is held as under; 33. 4. The point is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court delivered in Writ Petition No. 5383 of 2014 in case of Vidarbha Maharogi Seva Mandal, Tapovan, Amaravati vrs. The Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, and others, on 23.02.2016. In paragraph Nos. 33 and 34 of the said decision, it is held as under; 33. In view of above, it follows that merely because the tenant becomes statutory owner by virtue of subsection (1) of Section 46 or subsection (1) of Section 49A, that by itself will not be sufficient to protect him from eviction under Section 120 of the said Act, unless his title becomes indefeasible by obtaining certificate of purchase under subsection (8) of Section 43 of the said Act. In order to get protection, the tenant or his successor-in-interest must be armed with the weapon in the form of such certificate. The undisputed factual position in this case is that till this date, the tenant or his legal heirs have not obtained the certificate of purchase under subsection (8) of Section 43 of the said Act, to perfect the title or to make it indefeasible. Hence, they are not entitled to protection from eviction under Section 120 of the said Act. 34. The right of a tenant to purchase the land being made heritable upon the death of the original tenant as per Section 54 in Chapter III of the said Act, the heir or the successor-in-interest of the original tenant also gets the said right on the same terms and conditions on which the original tenant was holding the land at the time of his death. Hence, the legal heir or the successor-in-interest of the original tenant shall be bound to discharge all the statutory obligations of the original tenant to retain the title or to make his title over the land indefeasible." It is not in dispute in the present case that till this date neither the tenant nor his legal heir has obtained the certificate of purchase under subsection (8) of Section 43 of the said Act. Hence, he is not entitled to protection of eviction under Section 120 of the said Act. 5. In paragraph Nos. 41 and 42 of the aforesaid judgment, it has been held as under; 41. Hence, he is not entitled to protection of eviction under Section 120 of the said Act. 5. In paragraph Nos. 41 and 42 of the aforesaid judgment, it has been held as under; 41. The grant of exemption under Section 129(b) of the said Act is the conclusive evidence of the fact that the land in question is the property of the Public Trust and the entire income therefrom is appropriated for the purposes of such Trust. In the absence of such certificate, the factum of existence of the Trust on or before the tillers' day, i.e. 1-4-1961, and its utilisation of income from the land for the purposes of the Trust, will have to be established. There conditions are sine qua non to claim exemption from the applicability of Chapter III of the said Act. 42. Though the tenant satisfies the requirement of subsection (1) of Section 46 or subsection (1) of Section 49A under Chapter III of the said Act, the exemption under Section 129(b) of the said Act can be claimed only after coming into force of the said Act. Once it is held that the Trust is entitled to exemption under Section 129(b) of the said Act, the provisions of Chapter III therein shall cease to apply to such land with effect from the tillers' day, i.e. 1-4-1961, and the tenant shall not be entitled to protection from eviction under Section 120 of the said Act. The Question No. (1) is, therefore, answered accordingly. In view of above, the certificate of exemption granted in the present case is the conclusive evidence of the fact that the land in question is the property of the Public Trust and the entire income therefrom is appropriated for the purposes of such trust. Once it is held that the Trust is entitled to such exemption, the provision of Chapter III of the said Act ceases to apply to such land with effect from tillers date 01.04.1961 and the tenants are neither entitled to inherit the tenancy nor entitled to protection under Section 120 of the said Act. In view of above, the order passed by the authorities below rejecting the application under Section 120 of the said Act cannot be sustained. 6. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. In view of above, the order passed by the authorities below rejecting the application under Section 120 of the said Act cannot be sustained. 6. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 03.12.2013 at Annexure-G passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Tenancy Revision No. TNC/Rangaon/64/2006-07 and the order dated 17.03.2007 at Annexure-E passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Malkapur, in Revenue Case No. TNC/Rangaon-10/2001-02 are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Sub Divisional Officer to pass an order under Section 120 of the said Act for eviction and possession and to take further appropriate steps to implement the same. No order as to cost.