act no. xii of 1881 (north-western provinces rent act), section 56 - landholder and tenant--distraint--hypothecation for rent of produce of land. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978
[act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the.....burkitt, j.1. in my opinion the decision of the officiating district judge in this case is wrong. when the rent of a tenant (in this case an occupancy tenant) is in arrear, the landlord is, i think, entitled to distrain any crop growing on the tenant's holding, no matter by whom that crop was sown. this seems to me to be the clear meaning of the words 'the produce of all lands in the occupation of a cultivator shall be deemed to be hypothecated for the rent payable in respect of such land.' in my opinion it makes no matter whether such crop was sown, as in this case, by (be sub-tenant of an occupancy tenant or by the occupancy tenant himself. this is the view that was taken by this court in the case of geetum singh v. buldeo kahar (1872) 4 n.w.p. h.c. rep. 76 and in the observations of the late chief justice in the case of fatima begam v. hansi (1887) i.l.r. 9 all. 244; at p. 247. a similar rule has been adopted by the board of revenue. it may be that the wording of section 56 is open to some possible argument, but i am of opinion that that question is now covered by authority. i would allow this appeal, and, setting aside the order of the lower appellate court, restore the decree of the court of first instance with costs in all three courts.chamier, j.2. i concur on the ground that the question has been settled by the authorities to which my learned colleague has referred.3. the order of the court is that the appeal be allowed, that the remand order of the lower appellate court is set aside, and the decree of the court of first instance restored, with costs in all-courts.