SHIV DAYAL J - (1.)- This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner was an occupancy tenant and the respondents were his sab- lessees by virtue of pattas dated January 7, 1927, granted to them by his father, Bhaiyalal, for a period of 11 years.
(2.)ON October 25, 1950, the petitioner instituted a suit for ejectment under the M. B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, No. 66 of 1950 (hereinafter called the Tenancy Act). ON October 13, 1953, the Tahsil Court passed a decree for ejectment in favour of the petitioner. The respondents appealed but the S.D.O. dismissed it on August 24, 1950. They went in second appeal before the Revenue Commisssioner. ON November 28, 1960, that appeal was allowed, following the decision in Raghunath Singh v. Gangabai It was held that the respondents, being sub-lessees, were protected by the statute. The petitioner applied in revision to the Board of Revenue but he did not succeed. Now, he invokes the powers of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
On October 19, 1955, had come into force the M. B. Ryotwari Sub-Lessees Protection Act, No. 29 of 1955 (hereinafter called the Protection Act) and on October 2, 1959, had come into force the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called the Land Revenue Code).

The only question for determination, which was pressed before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have wrongly been held to be immune from eviction as a combined effect of the provisions contained in the Protection Act and the Land Revenue Code. It was also urged that the decision in Raghunath Singh v. Gangabi(1961 MPLJ 398) did not lay down the correct law.

(3.)THE M. B. Tenancy Act of 1950 permitted grant of sub-leases by specified classes of persons suffering under certain disabilities; it also recognised sub-leases which had been effected properly and legally prior to the commencement of that Act. Those provisions were contained in sections 74 and 75 of that Act. A sub-lease could be determined as provided in those sections, whereafter, possession was to revert to the lessor.
It is well-known that the Legislature endeavoured to abolish the rights of intermediaries and to create direct relationship of landlord and tenant between the State and the tiller of the soil. A sub-lessee, being the actual tiller, was contemplated to be retained undisturbed. It appears that the Legislature without finally making up its mind as to the future status of the sub-lessees, who continued as such even after the abolition of Zamindaries and Jagirs, as an ad interim step, enacted the Protection Act of 1955. This was a temporary measure. It was provided in section 3 of that Act that no suit could be instituted for eviction of a sub-lessee other than one under section 74 of the M. B. Tenancy Act of 1950, and under section 4 all pending suits for ejectment of sub-lessees from Ryotwari land were stayed. Eventually the Legislature decided to confer the status of an occupancy tenant on the sublessee and this was manifested in section 185 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code of 1959, which came into force on October 2, 1959. On that date, the present case was pending before the S.D.O. in appeal.