By an order dated August 21, 1957, he held that in view of the amendments made by the 1953 Act, "it is not for the Civil Court to ' decide but for the Revenue Officer to determine whether in the year 1951 52 also the defendant was paying to his landlord every week by way of rent one third share in the produce of the garden and was his lessee for that year also." He further observed that "if the answer to this question is in the affrmative, the defendant would be entitled to all the benefits of a protected tenancy, as observed by the learned Chief Justice in Paika vs Rajeshwar(1). ' ' In the result he set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge and directed "that the record and proceedings in this case be sent to the Revenue Officer that is, the SubDivisional Officer, Yeotmal, and the said Revenue Officer is directed to decide whether the defendant 's averment is right or otherwise, namely, that even after the expiry of the year 1950 51, that is, even after 31st March, 1951, the defendant used to pay to his landlord, the plaintiff, every week by way of rent one third share F in the produce of the garden.