Exclusion of Tenancy Act protection under section 88(1)(b) barred tenancy claims and made a Mamlatdar reference unnecessary.

Land validly excluded from the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act by a municipal notification and a section 88(1)(b) reservation notification falls outside the Act's earlier tenancy protections. The proviso to section 43-C did not apply because it concerns rights already accrued in section 43-C areas, and section 88-A1 was unavailable since the lands were already within municipal limits before the relevant cut-off date. On these facts, tenancy rights could not arise under the Act, so the civil court could decide applicability without awaiting a Mamlatdar reference. The reference was unwarranted and the order refusing to vacate the injunction was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the lands were excluded from the operation of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 by reason of the municipal notifications and the reservation notification under section 88(1)(b), and whether the reference to the Mamlatdar under section 85-A was therefore unnecessary and liable to be recalled.

Analysis: The lands in dispute had already been brought within the municipal limits of Malad and were later covered by a notification reserving the village area for non-agricultural and industrial development under section 88(1)(b). Once such a notification operated, the opening words of section 88 excluded the whole of the earlier provisions of the Tenancy Act from those lands. The proviso to section 43-C did not assist the respondents because that proviso dealt with rights already accrued in areas covered by section 43-C and did not control lands excluded by section 88(1)(b). The special protection in section 88-A1 also did not apply because the lands were already within the municipal limits before the relevant cut-off date. On the admitted facts, tenancy rights under the Act could not arise, and the civil court was entitled to decide the question of applicability without awaiting the revenue reference.

Conclusion: The Tenancy Act did not apply to the suit lands, the reference to the Mamlatdar was unwarranted, and the order refusing to vacate the injunction was liable to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where land is validly excluded from the operation of the Tenancy Act by a notification under section 88(1)(b), no rights under the earlier tenancy provisions can be claimed in respect of that land, and a civil court need not maintain a revenue reference on tenancy issues that are legally inapplicable.

---