https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165233 A tenant holding land on lease from a local authority could not claim protected-tenant status under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 because Section 88(1)(a) expressly excluded such leases from the Act's operation. The saving language in Section 89(2)(b) could not override that express exclusion, so it did not preserve any protected-tenancy right in favour of the lessee. Section 88-B also did not assist because the tenancy had already been determined before that provision came into force, and the post-amendment Section 4-A did not extend protected-tenant status to local-authority leases. en-us Fri, 27 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165233 A tenant holding land on lease from a local authority could not claim protected-tenant status under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 because Section 88(1)(a) expressly excluded such leases from the Act's operation. The saving language in Section 89(2)(b) could not override that express exclusion, so it did not preserve any protected-tenancy right in favour of the lessee. Section 88-B also did not assist because the tenancy had already been determined before that provision came into force, and the post-amendment Section 4-A did not extend protected-tenant status to local-authority leases. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 27 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165233