SONU PUNAJI ALAV SINCE DECEASED BY HEIRS SAVITRI SONU ALAV AND OTHERS Vs. NILKANTH SHRIDHAR DIXIT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A furious dispute has been raised in this petition which has been argued with great vehemence by Mr. G. R. Rege. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Mr. Atul Setalwad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The point at issue being one of some importance, the same deserves serious consideration. The question that falls for determination is as to whether a civil Court before which a plea of tenancy has been raised by a Defendant is duty bound to frame an issue regarding such tenancy and refer the point for decision to the revenue authorities by virtue of the provisions of sections 85 and 85A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy Act"). That a civil Court is precluded from evaluating question relating to tenancy under the Tenancy Act and that the jurisdiction in this regard vests exclusively with the revenue authorities is well crystallized in law and the dispute in this case has narrowed down to the extent of determining whether a civil Court is entitled to sift and weigh the material placed before it for purposes of deciding whether such an issue should be framed or not. A brief narration of facts is essential before considering the legal angle.

(2.) THE respondents filed Regular Civil Suit No. 38 of 1979 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Deogad on the allegations that the original petitioner before this Court, who was engaged by them in the capacity of a watchman and was entitled to half the share of the fruit and other agricultural produce, be restrained from obstructing the possession of the plaintiffs. Admittedly, the land is owned by the plaintiffs. As far as the small piece of land that is the subject -matter of this dispute is concerned, it is their case that the present original petitioner (since deceased) was engaged in his capacity as a watchman and that he was entitled as and by way of remuneration for the services rendered by him to half the share of the fruit produced. It was contended by the present petitioner, who was the original defendant, that he was a tenant in respect of the disputed land and, therefore, the Trial Court framed Issue No. 3, which reads as follows : -

(3.) MR . Rege, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the law is virtually concluded with regard to the main issue, namely, that a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to examine issues relating to tenancy and that, consequently, the learned Judge has erred in examine that question. Mr. Rege placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gundaji vs. Ramchandra, : 1979 Mh.L.J. 283 (S.C.) : AIR 1979 SC 653, wherein the law on the point has been very clearly enunciated to the extent that the Court has, in no uncertain terms, held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted. The Supreme Court observed as follows : -