SUBRAYA RAM BHATTA Vs. PYARA KRISHNA GAUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff's suit to recover Rs. 186-8-0 from his tenants as arrears of rent for the years 1950-51 and 1951-52 has been dismissed by the learned trial Judge on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The lands in question are Survey Nos. 103, 116 and 235 of Mavinkurve village and the plaintiff's case was that they had been let out to the tenants for cultivation and the tenants were liable to pity the amount claimed by Him by way of arrears of rent. The plea raised by the defendants against this claim was that a suit to recover arrears of rent in respect of agricultural lands could not be tried by a Civil Court and this plea has been upheld by the learned trial Judge. The view taken by the learned Judge that a claim for arrears of rent due in respect of agricultural lands cannot be entertained in a Civil Court is challenged before me by Mr. Vaidya on behalf of the landlord in the present revisional application.

(2.) MR. Vaidya contends that the learned Judge has misconstrued the provisions of Sections 70 and 85, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Act 67 of 1948 ). There can be no doubt that, before a Civil Court comes to the conclusion that its jurisdiction to entertain a civil action is ousted, the Court must be satisfied that there are provisions contained in any Act which expressly oust its jurisdiction in respect of any given matters. Under Section 70 of the Tenancy Act, the duties of the Mamlatdar are enumerated and Section 85 provides for a bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 85, Civil Courts are precluded from settling, deciding or dealing with any question which is by or under the Act required to be settled decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar. The result of reading Sections 70 and 85 together would, therefore, be that all matters which are left, and are required, to be determined by the Mamlatdar under Section 70 would be excluded from the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts under Section 85. Mr. Vaidya. concedes this position. But he argues that amongst the matters enumerated under Section 70 cannot be included the dispute which has given rise to the landlord's present suit. It is no doubt true that Section 70 Sub-clause (g) requires the Mamlatrtar to decide what is the reasonable rent under Section 12. But there is no provision in Section 70 which authorises and requires the Mamlatdar to deal with the question of the recovery of arrears of rent by the landlord from his tenant, and unless the subject-matter of the present suit is expressly Included within the duties assigned to the Mamlatdar under Section 70 of the Act it would not be possible to invoke the provisions of Section 85 Sub-section (1) in respect of such subject-matter and a suit in which a claim in regard to such subject-matter is made would naturally fall within the jurisdiction of the civil Court. In my opinion, therefore, Mr. Vaidya is entitled to succeed in his contention that a claim to recover arrears of rent in respect of an agricultural land made by the landlord against his tenant can be entertained by a Civil Court.

(3.) THAT, however, is not the end of the land-land's difficulties. After the suit is entertained, it is necessary to determine the merits of another point at issue between the parties. The tenants pleaded that the claim of the landlord for the recovery of arrears is unreasonable inasmuch as the said claim is made on the basis of annual rent which is not reasonable; and the question which this plea raises again touches the problem of jurisdiction of a Civil Court. Mr. H. B. Datar, who at my request has appeared amicus curiae on behalf of the tenants, argued that it is open to the tenant to contend under Section 1 that the rent claimed by the landlord is unreasonable; and Mr. Datar's argument is that the question raised by this plea must be determined by the special Court under Section 70 of the Act. In other words, a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent can no doubt be entertained by the Civil Court; but before the Civil Court passes a decree in favour of the plaintiff, the Civil Court must require the parties to get a decision from the special Court on the question as to whether the rent claimed by the landlord from his tenant is reasonable or not. As I have already indicated, under Section 70 Sub-clause (g) it is for the Mamlatdar to determine the amount of reasonable rent under Section 12 of the Act. Mr. Vaidya, on the other hand, argues that the plea by which the tenant challenges the reasonableness of the rent cannot be raised in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent like the present. His argument is that the determination, of reasonable rent under Section 12 of the Act must always be prospective, and if reasonable rent is not tenant mined in advance it would not be open to the tenant to resist the landlord's claim to recover arrears of rent by raising the plea that the rent claimed is unreasonable. It is this argument which calls for a closer examination in the present revisional application, I have not been referred to any decision of this Court where this argument has been examined, though three judgments have been cited before me in which certain observations are made bearing on this point. I am told that in some of its judgments the Revenue Tribunal has taken the view that reasonable rent cannot be determined -retrospectively. That is why I propose to deal with this question at some length.