- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. It is not disputed before us that the tenant withdrew the proceedings which he started under Section 9 (3 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 (the 'bral Act') and till that time the landlord had not instituted any proceedings. He had only given a notice under Section 9 (1 of the BRAL Act. It is also not disputed that in the meanwhile the new Act, viz. , the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 came into force which repealed the BRAL Act save and except to the extent of the proceedings which were pending on the date of the commencementof the new Act. Since no proceedings were pending after the tenant withdrew his proceedings, the BRAL Act has no application to the present case. This is a exactly what the impugned decision of the High court has held. We agree with the said decision and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.;