1. The suit was brought in the Mamlatdar's Court under Clause (6) of Section 19 of the Mamlatdars' Act. According to the finding of the Mamlatdar, the tenancy of defendants 1 and 2 which had commenced on the 5 th of June 1905 expired on the 6 th of June 1906; and the suit having been filed within six months from the latter date, the Mamlatdar had jurisdiction to take cognisance of it, so far as the cause of action affecting defendants 1 and 2, the tenants of the plaintiff, was concerned. But it is contended before us as it was before the Mamlatdar that he had no jurisdiction to try the suitbe far as it affected defendant No. 3. Now the Mamlatdar has found that defendant No, 3 has been in possession of the land since November 1905. That defendant having gone into possession during the continuance of defendants 1 and 2's tenancy, the plaintiff could not have sued in the Mamlatdar's Court to oust her : Goma v. Naraingrao I L R (1895) 20 Bom. 26. Defendants 1 and 2 could have sued, but if they were unwilling, the plaintiff according to the decision just cited had no alternative but to wait until the tenancy expired. Under these circumstances the law must be construed so as to prejudice no party situated as the plaintiff in the present case is. The Mamlatdars' Act is a remedial measure and must be liberally construed so as to advance the remedy. And we think in a case of this kind the plaintiff's remedy being to bring his suit under Clause (b) of Section 19 on the expiry of the tenancy, the fact that a trespasser (which defendant No. 3 must for the purposes of this case be held to be) got into possession during the continuance of the tenancy, but more than six months before its determination, is not sufficient to oust the Mamlatdar's jurisdiction. The trespass was on the tenancy and must stand or fall with it, because the plaintiff could not have assailed it in the Mamlatdar's Court so long as the tenancy was in force. And it must be held on a proper construction of the object and policy of the Mamlatdars' Act, that a trespasser like defendant No. 3 cannot defeat the right of the landlord to recover immediate possession of the land on the determination of defendant Nos. 1 and 2's tenancy by resorting to the summary remedy given by the Act. The rule is discharged with costs.