https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275626 The Supreme Court held that the High Court did not exceed its Article 227 jurisdiction because it interfered only with legal questions affecting the tribunals' power to grant relief, not with their factual findings. It further treated the mother as the natural guardian on the facts found, so the lease executed on behalf of the minor landlord was valid and binding, with no material showing it was imprudent or against the minor's interest. As the tenancy had been created before the statutory cut-off date, Section 39 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act did not apply, and the landlord's application under that provision was not maintainable; relief remained confined to Section 38. en-us Tue, 01 Sep 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:59:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275626 The Supreme Court held that the High Court did not exceed its Article 227 jurisdiction because it interfered only with legal questions affecting the tribunals' power to grant relief, not with their factual findings. It further treated the mother as the natural guardian on the facts found, so the lease executed on behalf of the minor landlord was valid and binding, with no material showing it was imprudent or against the minor's interest. As the tenancy had been created before the statutory cut-off date, Section 39 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act did not apply, and the landlord's application under that provision was not maintainable; relief remained confined to Section 38. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 01 Sep 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275626