https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285552 Section 88(1)(d) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act operated prospectively to exclude notified lands from the Act's protection when the notification was issued, but it did not extinguish rights preserved under the repealed 1939 Act and saved by Section 89(2). Where a later notification cancelled the first while the appeal was pending, the court had to decide the suit on the law in force at the time of judgment. As no exclusion notification was then operative, the tenants could rely on the Act's protection and resist eviction; the landlords' suits were therefore dismissed. en-us Wed, 02 May 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285552 Section 88(1)(d) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act operated prospectively to exclude notified lands from the Act's protection when the notification was issued, but it did not extinguish rights preserved under the repealed 1939 Act and saved by Section 89(2). Where a later notification cancelled the first while the appeal was pending, the court had to decide the suit on the law in force at the time of judgment. As no exclusion notification was then operative, the tenants could rely on the Act's protection and resist eviction; the landlords' suits were therefore dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 02 May 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285552