POTU BHAWANI Vs. UDHAO VITHOBA KHADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision application, the defendant Potu challenges a finding of the trial Court in a pending suit holding that the question of the status of the defendant who claims to be a tenant on the land is not required to be referred to the Tenancy Court under Section 125 of the Bombay Tenancy Act.

(2.) OPPONENT Udhao has filed his suit for possession of S. No. 6, area 12.20 acres, revenue Rs. 10 situate at mauza Surdevi, in Kelapur taluq of Yeotmal district. He has also asked for determination of mesne profits and costs of the suit from the defendant. The plaintiff's case is that he was in peaceful possession of the field as tenant in his own right having obtained leasehold rights from the owner of the land one Ramji. This Ramji is not a party to this suit. The plaintiff enjoyed the crop for the, years 1958 -59 and 1959 -60 as tenant. He then alleges that he took the defendant as a partner for cultivating the field and the terms of partnership are given in para. 3 of the plaint. According to the plaintiff, the partnership accounts of this venture were made at the end of the year 1960 -61 and the partnership was dissolved on April 1, 1961. However, the defendant continued in possession of the suit field though he had no right and the plaintiff claims that the defendant is now a trespasser on the land after April 1, 1961. Hence the suit for ejectment. The plaintiff himself claims that he has acquired the status of a tenant under the New Tenancy Act and the suit is in effect a suit in ejectment against a trespasser. - -

(3.) IN my opinion, the finding of the learned Judge is correct and must be upheld. On a perusal of the several sections of the New Tenancy Act it appears that several provisions incorporated in this Act are put on the statute book to govern relations between a landlord and tenant. It is undoubtedly true that a Mamlatdar is constituted a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction to decide several matters enumerated in Sub -clause (1) to (19) of Section 100. Under Sub -clause (2) of Section 100 a Mamlatdar is required to decide whether a person is a tenant, a protected lessee or an occupancy tenant. The question is whether this entry should be so interpreted as to constitute the Tahsildar a tribunal with exclusive jurisdiction whenever a question is raised in a civil Court by a person claiming the status of a tenant not as against the landlord of the land but in any other circumstances or context. In the instant case, both the plaintiff as well as the defendant claim exclusive right and status as a tenant of the same land. The plaintiff claims that he is a tenant and is also recorded as such, in the record prepared under Section 8 of the New Tenancy Act. According to the plaintiff, the applicant was accepted as a partner for cultivation and after termination of the partnership the defendant has no more right to come on the land. On the other hand, the defendant claims the same status as a tenant in pursuance of an independent contract with the landlord Ramji. Unless, therefore, it is possible to uphold the contention that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tenancy Court embraced other variety of questions relating to the status of a tenant claimed by any person, whether the claim is put forward as against the landlord or otherwise, we shall be unduly enlarging the ambit of exclusion. In my opinion, the scheme of the Act does not warrant such a conclusion. So far as Clauses (3) to (19) of Section 100 are concerned, it could definitely be said that most of the questions required to be determined by the Tahsildar under these clauses are questions between a landlord and tenant. It is difficult to hold, therefore, that the question whether a person is an agriculturist under Clause (1) or the question whether a person is a tenant, a protected lessee or an occupancy tenant under Clause (2) is a general question to be decided at large without reference to the landlord or even in his absence. In my opinion, a more appropriate construction of the section would be that even in respect of decision of such question as to the status of a person claiming to be a tenant, a protected lessee or an occupancy tenant, or claiming to be an agriculturist, it must have reference in the context of the claim against a landlord. It is only to that extent that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred and reference is required to be made to the Tenancy Court.