Final tenancy determination bars later suo motu reopening under Section 49B where tenant status was already negatived.

A prior final determination under Section 8 deleting the respondent's name as tenant precluded the Tahsildar from reopening that tenancy question in later suo motu proceedings under Section 49B. Section 49B applies only where the person is still a tenant and was dispossessed on the relevant date; once tenancy had been conclusively decided inter se the parties, there was no basis to revisit it. The respondent also could not claim deemed tenancy under Section 6, because the earlier acceptance of the landlords' personal cultivation case through saldars had already negatived that claim. The suo motu action was therefore without jurisdiction and unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a final order passed in earlier proceedings under Section 8 deleting the respondent's name as tenant barred the Tahsildar from initiating suo motu proceedings under Section 49B, and whether the respondent could still be treated as a tenant so as to claim restoration and statutory ownership.

Analysis: The earlier dispute as to tenancy had been directly decided under Section 8, and the order deleting the respondent's name had attained finality as no appeal was filed. Section 49B applies only where the person concerned is a tenant within the meaning of the Act and had been dispossessed from possession on the relevant date. Once the tenancy issue stood concluded inter se the parties, there was no subsisting material on record to reopen that question in a later proceeding under Section 49B. The Court also held that the respondent could not invoke deemed tenancy under Section 6, because the landlords' case of personal cultivation through saldars had already been accepted in the earlier proceeding. The Tahsildar, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to revisit the earlier determination or to rely on the deleted entry of 1958-59 as a basis for suo motu action.

Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to be treated as a tenant for the purpose of Section 49B, and the suo motu proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar were without jurisdiction and unsustainable.

---