Summarize the following court judgment. Appeals Nos. 1409 and 1721 of 1966. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 15	 1965 of the Bombay High Court	 Nagpur Bench in Special Civil Application Nos. 746 and 747 of. section K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta. for the appellants (in both the appeals). M. section Gupta	 for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in C.A. No. 1409 of 1966. section section KhanduJa	 for respondent No. 3 (in both the appeals). 658 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah	 J. Badridas son of Ramgopal was the owner of fields Survey Nos. 2 and 9/2 of village Bhamberi	 taluq Akot	 District Akola. On February 26	 1958	 Badridas granted a lease for cultivation of the lands to two brothers Kishan and Manik. At the end of the agricultural year 1958 59 Badridas ' took possession of the lands from Kishan and Manik representating that he desired to cultivate the lands personally. Badridas cultivated the lands during the agricultural years 1959 60 and 1960 61	 and thereafter on January 18	 1961 he granted a lease of the lands for four years to Bhagwant son of Pundalik Kishan and Manik then applied on June 30	 1961 under section 36(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act	 1958	 for an order restored them to possession alleging that their eviction from the lands was illegal. The Additional Tahsildar dismissed the application	 but in appeal the order was reversed. In the view of the appellate authority Kishan and Manik were in 1958 59 tenants of the lands and they were evicted otherwise than in accordance with the law	 and that they were entitled to be restored to possession under section 36(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act	 1958. In a petition by Bhagwant the Revenue Tribunal reversed the order of the appellate authority. The Tribunal held that since Kishan and Manik had given up pos session of the lands volutarily and had allowed Badridas to cultivate the lands for the following two years	 they had no right to be reinstated into possession of the lands	 especially after the lands were let out by Badridas to Bhagwant. Kishan and Manik then moved in the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur	 two Special Civil Applications Nos. 746 and 747 of 1964 in respect of the two fields Survey Nos. 2 and 9/2 separately. The High Court set aside the order of the Revenue Tribunal and directed that an order for pos session be made in favour of Kishan and Manik in respect of the two lands. With special leave	 these appeals have been preferred by Bhagwant. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act	 1958	 was brought into force on December 30	 1958. Section 20 provides : "A tenant may terminate the tenancy at any time by surrendering his interest of a tenant in favour of the landlord. Provided that such surrender shall be in writing and shall be verified before the Tahsildar in the prescribed manner." 659 Section 36 of the Act provides : ( 1 ) A tenant . entitled to possession of any land . under any of the provisions of this Act or as a result ofeviction in contraven tion of sub section (2) may apply in writing for each. possession to the Tahsildar. (2) No landlord shall obtain possession of any land	 held by a tenant except under an order of the Tahsildar. For obtaining such order he shall make an application in the prescribed form and within. a period of two years from the date on which the right to obtain possession of the land	 is deemed to have accrued to him: For the agricultural year 1958 59 Kishan and Manik were tenants in respect of two lands in question. Badridas took possession of the lands at the end of that year. Granting that Kishan and Manik delivered the lands voluntarily	 there could not under S 20 of the Act be a valid surrender	 unless the surrender was in writing and verified before the Tahsildar and in the prescribed manner. Possession obtained by Badridas was not lawful	 for Badridas obtained possession of the land from the tenants without complying with the requirements of section 20 and of sub section (2) of section 36. Sub section (2) of section 36 prohibits the landlord from obtaining possession of any land held by a tenant except under an order of the Tahsildar. Delivery of possession voluntarily by Kishan and Manik did not render the possession of Badridas valid. Under section 36(1) a tenant who has been evicted in contravention of sub section (2) may apply in writing to the Tahsildar for such possession. Counsel for the appellant contended that section 36(2) does not commence with the expression "Notwithstanding any agreement	. usage	 decree or order of a court of law" as section 19 of the Act does	. and on that account it may reasonably be inferred that the Legislature intended that only those tenants shall be deemed entitled to possession within the meaning of section 36(1) who were dispossessed by fraud	 coercion or misrepresentation	 and not tenant who had voluntarily parted with possession of the lands. We are unable to agree with that contention. Section 19 provides that not with standing any agreement	 usage	 decree or order of a court of law tenancy of any land held by a tenant shall not be terminated exception the cases specified therein. Thereby it was intended to make the provisions of section 19 paramount. In section 20 'of the Act which deals with surrender it is expressly enacted that surrender shall be in writing and shall be Verified in the prescribed manner. Surrender of tenancy which does not comply with the requirements of section 20	 660 is ineffective. Again	 sub section (2) of section 36 imposes a disability upon the landlord from obtaining possession of any land occupied by a tenant except under an order of the Tahsildar. The terms of subs. (2) of section 36 are explicit : they are not subject to any implication ' that possession obtained with the consent of the tenant	 but without an order of the Tahsildar is valid In a recent judgment Madhao s/o Tatya Sonar vs The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and ors. (1) the High Court of Bombay held that section 36(2) is plenary and controls section 20 of the Act. In the present case there is no surrender of tenancy in writing and no verification of surrender by the Tahsildar. We need express no opinion on the question Whether mere verification by the Tahsildar without an order of the Tahsildar authorising the landlord to obtain possession disentitles the tenant to claim possession under section 36(1). The appeals fail and tire dismissed. Having regard to all the circumstances	 however	 we think	 there should be no order as to costs in this Court. Counsel for the appellant Bhagwant submitted that there are crops standing on the lands	 and prayed that the appellant may be allowed to reap them. 0one months time from the date of this judgment is given to the appellant to deliver possession of the lands. Y.P. Appeals dismissed. (1) Special Civil Application No. 206 of 1967 decided on September 11/12 1969.

The respondents obtained a lease for cultivation of land. On the landlord 's desire to cultivate the land personally	 the respondents surrendered the lands to the landlord. The surrender was not in writing nor was there verification of the surrender by the Tehsildar. The landlord cultivated the land for a few years	 and thereafter granted a lease to the appellant. The respondents applied under section 36 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act	 1958	 for restoration of possession to them. On the question whether the eviction of respondent was legal	 this Court	 HELD : Possession obtained by the landlord was not lawful for	 he obtained possession of the lands from the tenants without complying with the requirements of section 20 and sub section (2) of section 36. Sub section (2) of section 36 prohibits the landlord from obtaining possession of any land held by a tenant except under an order of Tahsildar. Delivery of possession voluntarily by the respondents did not render possession of the landlord valid. Under s.36(1) a tenant who has been evicted in contravention of sub section (2) may apply in writing to the Tahsildar for such possession. [1659 E] By section 20 of the Act which deals with surrender it is expressly provided that surrender shall be in writing and shall be verified in the prescribed manner. Surrender of tenancy which does not comply with the requirements of section 20 is ineffective. Again the terms of sub section (2) of section 36 are explicit; they are not subject to any implication that possession obtained with the consent of the tenant	 but without an order of the Tahsildar is valid. [659 H] In the present case there is no surrender of tenancy in writing and no verification of surrender by the Tahsildar. Madho S/o Tatya Sonar vs Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal & Ors. Special Civil Application No. 206/1967 dt. 11 12 1969	 followed.