c ISHVERLAL THAKORELAL ALMAULA v. MOTIBHAI NAGJIBHAI August 10, 1965 (K. N. WANCHOO, J. C. SHAH AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.J Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 67 of 1948-Proviso to s. 43C-lntroduced by Bombay Act 13 of 1956-Whether protect$ tenants In suits filed after enactment of BOJmbay
Act 33 pf 1952- Ss. 70 and 85-Jurisdlction of Civil Courts-Scope of-ProviSo-If a substantive provision. In June 1939, the appellant granted tenancy of certain lands for agri- cultural purposes, at first to the respondent's father, and later to the resM pondent. The tenancy was continued from year to year under fresh agreements.
After serving a notice on the respondent in November 1955 to deliver vacant possession of the lands in March 31, 1956, the appellant filed a suit for ejectment. The trial court decreed the appel-
lant's claim, but in appeal the District Judge reversed this decision ~n the ground that under the· proviso to s .. 43C, of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 67 of 1948, the respondent was a protected tenant within the meaning of that Act, read with the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939; and that the civil court had no jurisdiction to grant a decree for possession of the land in dispute.
An appeal to the High Court was dismissed. In the appeal to this Court, HELD: (per Shah and Wanchoo, JJ.) (i) The provi>o to s. 43C aiforts protection to the tenant if the tenant bad the protection of the Act of 1948 as originally enacted, notwithstand- ing that the protection was taken away by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1952.
Protection of the proviso to 1. 43C must be given to the tenant even in cases where it is claimed in a lllit filed before the amending Act of 1956 was enacted, if the suit is not finally disposed of. [376 G-H]
Pat•/ Maganbhai Jethabhai v. Somabhai Sursang, (1958) 60 Bom. LR. 1383, approved. The proper function of a proviso is to except or qualify som..thing enacted in the substantive clause, which but for the proviso would be within that clause.
But the question is one of interpretation of the proviso; there is no rule that the proviso must always be restricted to the ambit of the main enactment and it may at times amount to a substantive provision, [373 F, G]
(ii) The order passed by the District Judge dismissing the suit could not be sustained. Under s. 85A, introduced into Act 67 of 1948 by Act 13 of 1956, even in a suit properly instituted in the civil court, if any issue arises which is required to be decided by the revenue court, such issue shall be referred for trial to that court, and the suit shall be disposed of in the light of that decision.
The District Judge should have referred the questi.>ns re- lating to the tenancy and its determination wbich arose in the suit, to be SUPRl!MB COURT ltEPORTS [ 1966] 1 S.C.R. tried by the Mamlatdar u a revenue court and should not have proceeded to dilposc of the suit. (378 C.D, HJ
Pandurang Hari v. Shanker Maruri, 62 Bom. L.R. 873 and Kalicharan Bha/anlal Bhayya v. Roi Malw/axmi and Anr., 4 Guj. L.R. 145, copgidcrcd. (per :-.ludbolk.ar, J. di.Jseming) The benefit of the proviso to s. 43C would be available only to a person who is or claims to be a tenant or protected tenant under the Act. Under s. 70, the question whether or nol a penoo is a protected tenant is to be determined by the Mamlatdar acting u a revenue court and by virtue of s. 85 ( 1) no civil court has jurisdie- tion to consider such a claim.
No sooner such a claim is malie before a civil court, it must stay it• hands and refer the question to the Mamlal- dar, who has exclusive jurisdic:ion to adjudicate on the facts in issue between the parties as well 39 to detennine the
effect of the various prnviaions of law bearing on the point. [379 F-380 CJ It is not open to this court to examine for itself the various enactment>, comt111C tho provisions, and state its conclusions as to their applicability to the present case. The jurisdiction to do any of these things in ao appeal of thil kind ii barred by the combined operation of ss. 70(b) and 85(1). (381 CJ
Paika DcuaTlt Bhan.fl• v. Rajeshwar Bala/I A wari, (1958) Bom. LR. 8 (P.B.), re~rred to. C1v1L APPELLA TB JUR!SDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 210 of 1%3. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
April 30, 1959 of the Bombay High Court in second appe.!I No. 439 of 1959. S. T. Desai, S. N . .Andley, Mohinder Narain, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. V ohra, for the appellants. S. S. Shukla, for the respondent.
The Judgment of Wanchoo and Shah, JJ. was delivered by Shah. J. Mudholkar, J. delivered a dissenting Opinion. Shah, J, On June 18, 1939, lshverlal Almaula-hcreinafter called 'the appellant'-granted for agricultural purposes tenancy rights in land bearing Survey Nos. 52 & 158 at Kanbivaga in the town of Broach to Nagjibhai, father of the respondent, and since that date the land continued to remain in the possession of Nagjibhai and after his death of his son Motibhai. By letter dated November 2, 1955
the appellant terminated the tenancy and called upon the respondent to deliver vacant possession of the land on March 31, 1956, and filed on April 4, 1956 Suit No. 180 of 1956 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division. at Broach for a decree in ejcctmcnt against the respondent and for mesne profits.
The Civil Judge decreed the appellant'~ claim. In appeal the District Judge, Broach reversed the decree of the Trial Coun and dismiwd the sui~. He held that in view of tlle JI JSHVERLAL V. MOTJBHAI (Shah, J.)
A proviso to s. 43C incorporated in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 67 of 1948 by Bombay Act 13 of 1956, the respondent continued by virtue of the amendment by Act 13 of 1956 to remain a tenant, and tlie Civil Court had no jurisdic- tion to grant a decree for possession of the land in dispute. In
reaching that conclusion the learned Judge followed the decision B of the Bombay High Court in Pntel Maganbhai Jethabhai v. Somabhai Sursang. (') A second appeal to the High Cour1: of
Bombay was dismissed summarily. With special leave, the appel- lant has appealed to this Court. Counsel for the appellant raised two contentions in support C of the appeal : ( 1) That the rights of tlie respondent in the land
conferred or recognised by virtue of Bombay Act 67 of 1948 were extinguished on the enactment of Bombay Act 33 of 1952, and by the amendments made by Act 13 of 1956 '(which was brought into force during the
pendency of the suit) tliose rights were not restored to the respondent so as to prejudice the appellant's claim to evict him; and (2) that the Civil Court was competent in the suit
filed by the appellant to grant a decree for possession of the land held by the respondent. Facts which have a bearing on the question raised in this appeal and the relevant statutory provisions may be briefly set out. The land in dispute is situate within the limits of the Broach F Borough Municipality.
Nagjibhai-father of the respondent and after his death the respondent were tenants of the land since June 1939, the tenancy being continued year afrer year under fresh agreements.
Notice calling upon the respondent to vacate and deliver possession of the land on March 31, 1956 was given in terms of s. 84 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. The G Bombay Tenancy Act 29 of 1939 was applied on April 11, 1946 to the area in which the land is situate, and the name of Nagjibhai was entered in the Record of Rights as a protected tenant under the Bombay Tenancy Act 29 of 1939 as amended by Bombay
Act 26 of 1946. By the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 67 of 1948, which was brougM into force on Decem- ber 28, 1948, the Bombay Tenancy Act 29 of 1939 stood re- pealed, subject to the reservation that ss. 3, 3A and 4 of the (I) (1958) 6\J Bom. L. R. 1383.
SUPIU!MB COUllT llEPORTS [1966) I S.C.R. repealed Act as modified by the Schedule to the repealing Act remained operative. The status of the respondent und~r the Bombay Tenancy Act 29 of 1939 remained, even after the repeal of that Act, protected by virtue of s. 31 of Act 67 of 1948 as originally enacted.
A tenant was defined in Act 67 of 1948 as meaning an agriculturist who holds land on lease and includes a person who is deemed to be a tenant under the provision.s of the Act [s. 2(18)J. '·Land"' was defined hy s. 2(~) as "land which is used for ag'."icultural purposes, and includes" amongst others sites of farm buildings and sites of dwelling houses occupied by agriculturists.
Section 5 of the Act provided that no tenancy of any land shall be for a period of less than ten years, and that no renancy shall be terminated before the expiry of the period of ten years except on the grounds mentioned in s. 14.
Section 14 provided that : " (I) Notwithstanding any agreement, usage, decree or order of a Court of law, the tenancy of any land held by a tenant shall not be tem1inated unless such tenant"
has done acts or committed defaults specified in els. (a) to (e). It may be sufficient to state that under s. 14 a notice calling upon the tenant to vacate and deliver possession of the land demised on the expiry of the contractual period of the annual tenancy does not operate to determine the tenancy.
By sub-s. (2) of s. 29 it was enacted that a landlord shall not obtain possession of land held by a tenan~ except under an order of the Mamlatdar. Chap- ter Ill dealt with the special rights and privileges of protected tenants.
By s. 32 it was provided that notwithstanding anythin!! (to the) contrary in any law, usage or contract, a protected tenant shall at any time be entitled to purchase from the lan~lord the land held by him as a protected tenant. Section 34 prescribed certain other restricrions upon the landlord's right to determine c
a protected tenancy. The first sub-section gave liberty to a land- lord to determine a protected tenancy notwithstanding anything contained in s. I 4, by giving one year's notice in writing, if the landlord bona fide required the land,
(I) for cultivating per- sonally, or (2) for any non-agricultural use of his own purpose. The Act also provided a special forum for determination of ques- tions required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Act. ISHVERLAL V. MOTIBHAI (Shah, J.)
A By s. 70 the duties of the Mamlatdar were specified. The se~ tion, in so far as it is material, provided : c "For the purposes of this Act, the following shall be the duties and functions to be performed by the
Mamlatdar- (a) (b) to decide whether a person is a tenant or a protected tenant;" Section 85 provided by its first sub-seccion : "No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle,
decide, or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar or Tribunal, a Manager, the Collec- tor or the Bombay Revenue Tribunal in appeal or
revision or the Provincial Government in exercise of their powers of control," and for the purpose of this section, a civil court includes a Mamlatdar's Court constituted under the Mamlatdars' Court'S Act, 1906.
Therefore, by Act 67 of 1948 the rights of protected tenants acquired under the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939, were, notwithstanding the repeal of that Act, preserved, a tenancy agreement was to be for a period of not less than ten years, and the tenancy could not be determined before the expiry of the period otherwise than for reasons set out in s. 14, and possession of land demised to a tenant could not be obtained otherwise than by an order of the Revenue Court under s. 29(2). A landlord F could determine a protected tenancy on the grounds mentioned in s. 34, but a protected tenant had a right to purchase the land occupied by him.
The jurisdiction of the Civil Court "to deal with or decide any question which is by or under the Act required to be dealt with, settled or decided by" the Revenue Court was excluded and the Revenue Courts were invested with exclusive G jurisdiction for the purpose of the Act to decide several questions including the question whether a person was a tenant or a
protected tenant. When Bombay Act 67 of 1948 was brought into force in the town of Broach, the respondent acquired right'S which a renant could claim under that Act and his rights flowing from the status of a protected tenant remained expressly preserved.
But the Legislature thereafter enacted Bombay Act 33 of 1952 with effect from January 12, 1953 and by the amendment to s. 88 !which [l96b] I S.C.R. exciuded lands in certain areas and of specified descriptions from the operation of ss. 1 to 87 of th" Bombay Act 67 of 1948) lands situate within all municipal boroughs constituted under Act 18 of 1925 ceased to be governed by Act 67 of 1948. Taking advantage of the amendment by Bombay Act 33 of 1952 the appellant pur- ported to terminate as from March 31, 1956 the tenancy by a notice in accordance with s. 84 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, and commenced an action in the Civil Court for a decree for possession.
During the pendency of the action, s. 88 was again amended by Act 13 of 1956. The Legislature by that Ac~ repealed cl. ( c) of s. 88 as it stood modified by Act 33 of 1952 and restricted the exemption from the operation of the Act to lands belonging to the Government and certain other lands. The effect of the amendment was to restore to tenants of lands within certain municipal boroughs (such lands not falling within the dci;cription of lands described in s. 88 as amended and ss. 88A to 88C as inserted) the protection of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 67 of 1948 as originally enacted. It is common ground that the land with which we arc concerned in this appeal i~ not of the description in ss. 88 and 88A to 88C of the Act as amended by Act 13 of 1956.
The Legislature also enacted by Act 13 of 1956 s. 43C which by the proviso sought to restore with retrospective effect the rights which had been previously acquired under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 67 of 1948 on or after December 28, 1948, notwithstanding that the Bombay Act 33 of 1952 bad been made applicable to the area in which the land is situate.
Section 43C provided : "Nothing in sections 32 to 32R (both inclusive) and 43 shall apply to lands in the areas within the limits of- (a) Greater Bombay, (h) a municipal corporation constituted under the
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, ( c) a municipal borough constituted under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, (d) a municipal district constituted under the Bombay
District Municipal Act, 1901, (e) a cantonment, or ISHVERLAL V. MOTIBHAI (Shah, J.) (f) any area included in a Town Planning Schedule c under the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954: Provided that if any person has acquired any right
as a tenant under this Act on or after the 28th Decem- ber, 1948, the said right shall not be deemed to have been affected by the Bon1bay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1952, or (save as expressly
provided in section 43D), by the Amending Act, 1955, notwithstanding the fact that either of the said Act has been made applicable to the area in which such land is situate." The decision in this appeal must primarily depend upon the· meaning and effect of the proviso to s. 43C.
The enactment of tlle proviso, it may be observed, illustrates how clumsy drafting obscures the meaning of a statute. The proviso appears to he entirely out of place in the scheme of the substantive part of s. 43C, which excludes from the operation of ss. 32 to 32R and 43, lands in the areas specified in els. (a) to (f), and cl. (c) specifies one of such areas as "a municipal borough constituted under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925".
Sections 32 to 32R as inserted by Act 13 of 1956 deal with the purchase of lands held by tenants on April 1, 1957, and to related matters and s. 43 imposes restrictions on the transfer of lands purchased by virtue of the right reserved under ss. 32, 32F or 32-0 or sold under ss. 32-P or 64 of the Act.
The proper function of a proviso is to except or qualify some- thing enacted in the substantive clause, which but for the proviso would be within that clause. It may ordinarily be presumed in
construing a proviso that it was intended that the enacting part of the section would have included the subject-matter of the proviso. But the question is one of interpretation of the proviso : and there is no rule that the proviso must always be restricted to the an1bit of the main enactment.
Occasionally in a statute a proviso is unrelated to the subject-matter of the preceding sec- tion, or contains matters extraneous to that section, and it may have then to be interpreted as a substantive provision, dealing independently wfoh the matter specified therein, and not as quali- fying the main or the preceding section.
By the substantive clause of s. 43C the tenants do not acquire in respect of lands described therein rights conferred by ss. 32 to 32R : that part of s. 43C is therefore in the nature of a qualifi- cation or an exception, and functions as a proviso to ss. 32 to [1966] l S.C.R.
32R. The proviso to s. 43C goes on, not to carve out an excep- tion–0r to impose a qualification to the exclusion prescribed by the main enactment, but deals with a matter which is unrelated thereto.
In terms it seeks to protect ·rigllts acquired or arising not under ss. 32 to 32R (which were added by Act 13 of 195~) but under the principal Act 67 of 1948 on or after December 28, 1948, and those rights are protected not from the operation of the substantive part of s. 43C, but from the operation of Act 33 of 1952, or of "the Amending Act of 1955". It may be
recalled that by Act 33 of 1952, the Act ceased to apply to land within the municipal boroughs, but the intention disclosed by the proviso to s. 43C was to declare that all rights acquired by persons as tenants under the principal Act were to continue to remain available to them in respect of lands within the Municipal Boroughs as if Act 33 of
1952 were never enacted. The "Amending Act of 1955" is no other than Act 13 of 1956 [see the definition of "permanent tenant" in s. 2( lOA) added to the principal Act ands. 1 (1) of Act 13 of 1956].
The Legislature has by referring to the "Amending Act of 1955" sought aiso to protect, save as cxp~essly provided in s. 43D, the rights acquired · under Act 67 of 1948, notwithstanding the amendments made
c by Act 13 of 1956. Bys. 48 of Act 13 of 1956, the scheme of exemption from the operation pf the Act of certain provisions thereof was extensively amenped in respect of different classes of E land.
Section 88 of Act 67 of 1948 as originally enacted was substituted by ss. 88, 88A, 88_B, 88C & 88D. But this modified scheme of exemption and other provisions of the Act were by virtue of the proviso to s. 43C not to affect the rights of tenants acquired on or after ·December 28, 1948 under Act 67 of 1948, save as expressly provided by s. 43D.
Counsel for, the appellant, however, urged that even if the proviso to s. 43C be read as dealing substantively with matters specified therein,. it does not CO)Ile to the aid of the respondent, because at the date when Act 13 of 1956 was enacted, the tenancy of the resp9ndent stood· determined accbrding to law, as it then applied to the. land~ and the respondent had ceased to be a tenant. In the absence of express enactment to the contrary, said counsel, the rights of the appellant to obtain possession of the land accord· ing to the law prevailing, from a person who was at the date of the suit not a tenant, could not be deemed to be restricted by the enactment of Act 13 of 1956. In support of this contention, counsel strongly. relied upon s. 89(2)(b) of· Act 67 of 1948 which provided :
ISHVERLAL v. MOTIBHAI (Shah, J.) 37 5 "But nothing in this Act or any repeal effected c thereby- ( a) (b) shall save as expressly provided in !his Act, affect or be deemed to affect,
( i) any right, title, interest, obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred before the commencement of this Act, or (ii) any legal proceeding or remedy in respect of
any such right, title, interest, obligation or liability or anything done or suffered before the commencement of this Act, and any such proceedings shall be continued and dis- posed of, as if this Act was not passed."
~n our view sub-s. (2) of s. 89 which incorporates, with some variations, the provisions found in s. 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act 1 of 1904, relating to the operation of provisions which repeal statutes, has no relevance in considering the effect of the amendments made by Act 13 of 1956.
Sub-section (2) of s. 89 in terms protects (save as expressly provided in the Act) right, title, interest, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred "before the commencement of this Act" i.e. Act 67 of 1948. and it also protects legal proceedings or remedies in res- pect of any such right, title, interest, obligation or liability or anything done or suffered "before the commencement of this Act". The appellant does not seek to enforce a right acquired before the Act 67 of 1948 was enacted, and a suit instituted for a decree for possession of lands pursuant to a determination of tenancy by a notice in 1956 is not a suit in respect of a right or title acquired or accrued "before the commencement of this Act" within !he meaning of s. 89(2).
The argument of counsel if based on the assumption that the expression commencement of this Act means commencement of Act 13 of 1956, but for that assumption there is no warran~ in the language of the statute.
The alternative contention of counsel for the appellant that by virtue of s. 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act 1 of 1904 also legal proceedings to enforce rights acquired before Act 13 of 1956 was passed were saved, has no force.
By s. 7 of the General Clauses Act the repeal of an enactment shall not inter alia affect any right, privilege, or liability acquired, accrued or in- curred under any enactment so repealed or affect any investiga- tion, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, 371)
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1966] I S.C.R. privilege, obligation. liability etc. and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted or continued or e~f:'rced as if the repealing Act had not been passed.
Act 13 of 1956 may in so far as it seeks to substitute the new scct;ons 8i> and 88A ;o g;m for the old section 88 be regarded as a re~·1Iing enactment. Section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Ac\ how-
ever, applies ~nly if a different intention docs not appear, and a different intention clearly appears from the teems of the n-·ovi<o to s. 43C which state tha~ the rights acquired by a pcr~on as a tenant under Act 67 of 1948 on or after December 28. 1 9.tR arc not to be deemed affected by Act 33 of 1952.
The provi–o therefore by cxprC'.<s enactment saves the rights acquired under Act 67 of 1948 before Act 33 of 1952 was enacted. The respondent became on the enactment of Act 67 of \ 9.\8 entitled as a tenant to the diverse rights conferred by thctt Act. The right to claim that every contractual tenancy is statutorily extended for a period of ten years, the right to claim that the tenancy may not be determined otherwise than in circumstances mentioned in s. 14, and in case of protected tenants subject to restrictions imposed by s. 34, the right not to be deprived of possession otherwise than by an order under s. 29(2), were some of those rights vested in the respondent before Act 33 of 1952 was enacted.
These and other rights were restored to the tena·~l' ~ctrospectivdy from the date on which Act 33 of 1952 was en- acted by virtue of 1he express provision contained in the orovi"'' to s. 43C.
The Lef•i<Iaturc having restored the rights ori~inally granted under Act 67 of 1948 with retrospective operation from the date on which Act 33 of 1952 was enacted. a person sued, heforc Act 13 of 1956 was ·brought into force, could in a pending >uit set up the defence that he is entitled to the rights or a ~cnant or a protected tenant.
In Parr/ Maganbhai f!>rhabhai's case(') the Bombay High Court held that the proviso to s. 43C affords protection to the tenant if the tenant had the protection of the Act of 1948 a., originally enacted, notwithstanding that the protection was taken away by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amend-
ments) Act, 1952. The Bombay High Court also held that the protection of the proviso to s. 43C must be given to the tenant even in cases where it is claimed in a suit filed before the amend- ment was enacted. if the suit is no~ finally disposed of.
We a!?fCC with the Bombay High Court on both the questions decided in Patel Maganbhai Jethabhafs case. ( 1 ). – —- (I) (t9S8) 60 Bom. LR. 1383. ISHVERLAL V. MOTIBHAI (Shah, J.) But the order passed by the District Judge dismissing the sui~ cannot be sustained.
The learned District Judge passed the order of dismissal of the suit, presumably because a similar order was passed in Patel Maganbhai Jethabhai's case.(') It was assumed in Patel Maganbhai Jethabhai's case(') that the Mamlatdar in whose Court the suit was instituted was competent to decide the various issues relaHng to the rights claimed by the tenant. It is not clear from the judgment in Patel Maganbhai Jethabhai's case(') whether the suit was instituted in the Court of the Mam- latdar exercising his power under s. 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Ac~ 2 of 1906.
Bys. 85 of Act 67 of 1948 a Mamlatdar's Court constituted under Act 2 of 1906 is a Civil Court, whereas a Mam- e latdar exercising powers under s. 29(2) is a Revenue Court. In the present case, the suit was properly entertained by the Civil Court, but since the enactrnen~ of Act 13 of 1956 the Civil Court could not try certain issues arising therein, because those issues were triable by virtue of s. 70 of Act 67 of 1948 exclusively by D the Revenue Court.
There is, however, nothing in Act 67 of 1948 which prevents continuation of the suit already instituted. In such a suit the issues exclusively triable by the Revenue Court by the combined operation of ss. 70 & 85 will have to be tried by the Mamlatdar as a Revenue Court, and a decree in eject- ment against a tenant may, since the enactment of Act 13 of 1956, E not be made by the Civil Court. The proper procedure in such a case is that the Civil Court should refer to the Revenue Court all such issues as are triable exclusively by that Court by virtue of the combined operation of ss. 70 & 85. The Civil Court may then pass such decree or order as is consistent with the adjudica- tion of the Revenue Court. If the Revenue Court is of the view that the relation of landlord and tenant subsisted and the tenancy had been duly determined in the manner provided by s. 14 or by s. 34 if the tenant is a protected tenant, it may be necessary to obtain from the Revenue Court in an appropriate proceeding an order under s. 29(2).
It may be pertinent in this connection to refer to s. 85A G which was added by Act 13 of 1956. The section, insofar as it is material, provided : " ( 1) If any suit instituted in any Civil Court in-
volves any issues which are required to be settled, decid- ed or dealt with by any authority competent to settle, decide or deal with such issues under this Act (here- inafter referred to as the "compete11~ authority") the
(I) (1958) 60 Bom. L.R. 1383. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1966] I S.C.R. Civil Court shall stay the suit and refer such issues to such competent authority for determination. ( 2) On rcecipt of such reference from the Civil
Court, tl1e competent authority shall deal with and decide such issues in accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall communicate its decision to the Civil Court and such court shall thereupon dispose of the
suit in accordance with the procedure applicable thereto. Exrifmiativ11.-for purpose of this section a Civil Court shall include any Mamlatdar's Court constituted under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906."
Whatcva may have been the position before Act 13 of 1956, the Legislature has clearly exprcss~d its imcntion that even in a suit properly instirutd in the Civil Court, if any issue arises which is required to be decided by the Revenue Court, the issue shall be rckrrcd for trial to that Court, and the suit shall be disposed of in the light of that decision.
TI1e Legislature has therefore clearly expressed itself that issues required under Act 67 of 1948 to be decided by a Revenue Court, even if arising in a civil sui~ must be decided by the Revenue Court and not by the Civil Court. The view expressed by the Bombay High Court in Pandurang Hari c
v. Shanker Maruti(') and by the Gujarat High Court in Kalicharan Bhaja11/al Bhayya v. Bai Mahalaxmi widow of Trikamlal & Another,(') that a suit properly instituted in the Civil Court
before Act 13 of 1956 is not liable to be dismissed merely because the rights acquired by tenants under Act 67 of 1948 are retros- pectively restored is correct, but we are unable to agree with the Bombay and the Gujarat High Courts that the Civil Court i~ com- petent to adjudicate upon the issues which are by Act 67 of 1948 required to be decided by the Revenue Court.
The finding recorded by the District Judge that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit and the ultimate order passed by him dismissing the plaintiff's suit are therefore not
strictly accurate. If the appellant desired that the questions relat- ing to the tenancy and its derermination which arose in the suit be tried by the Mamlatdar as a Revenue Court, which that autho- rity alone was competent to decide, the District Judge should have referred to the Revenue Court those questions for determination and should not have proceeded to dispose of the suit.
We ac- cordingly set aside the decree passed by the High Court ancl the (I} 62 Born. L. R. 873. (2) ~ G1rj. L R. 14S. ISHVERLAL v. MOTIBHAI (Mudholkar, I.) A District Court and direct that the District Couri do restore the appeal to its original number and do proceed according to law. It appears that before the District Couri the appellant had conceded that the suit may in view of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Patel Maganbhai Jethabhai's case(') be dismissed, and he requested the Disirict Court not to pass an order for costs B against him.
In the circumstances of the case, we direct the appellant's legal representatives to pay the costs of this appeal to the respondent. The costs in the District Court will abide the
event. Mudholkar, J. The facts as well as the two points raised in c the argument before us appear in the judgment prepared by my brother Shah and need not be repeated. I agree with him that the District Court was in error in allowing the appeal and dismiss- ing the present appellant's suit for possession of the land in suit. In that suit the appellant's case was that he had terminated the respondent's ienancy by giving him an appropriate notice to quit. The substantial plea of the respondent was that his tenancy was governed by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 as it stood on the date of suit and that the combined effect of ss. 70 and 85 of that Act was to deprive the civil court of its jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Tn the arguments before us reliance was placed on his behalf in particular on the proviso to s. 43C which was added by amend- ment Act 13 of 1956. The learned counsel on the other side
had claimed the benefit of the provisions of s. 89(2) (h) of the Act which seeks to preserve certain rights, titles etc., and exempts them from the operation of the Act. The benefit of the proviso to s. 43C of the Act would be
available only to a person who is or claims to be a tenant or protected tenant under the Act. That in turn would depend upon the effect of the various amendments to the Act made after its enactment in 1948 till the date of suit, including the effect of s. 89(2) (h) of the Act. ~ection 70 of the Act, however, pro- G vides that one of the duties to be performed by the Mamlatdar (who acts as a revenue court) is to decide whether a person is a tenant or a protected tenant. Obviously this must mean a claim to be a tenant or a protected tenant under the Act. Section 85 ( 1) provides:
"No Civil Couri shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with (I) [1958] 60 Born. L.R. 1383.
St;PREME COURT REPORTS (1965] I S.C.R. by the Mamlatdar or Tribunal, a Manager, the Col!cc- tor or the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in appeal or revision or the State Goverrunent in exercise of their
powers of control." It would be seen from the two aforesdd provisions that no sooner such a claim is made before a Civil Court it must stay its hands and refer that question to the Mamlatdar, acting
as a revenue court for his decision [sec Paika Dasaru Bhongle v. Rajeshwar Ba/aji Awari(')]. In order to answer it, the Mamlatdar will have to adjudicate on the facts in issue between the parties as well as to determine the effect of the various provisions of law bearing on the point.
He gets exclusive jurisdiction to do so by c the combined operation of the two provisions aforesaid in view of the fact that a person claims to be a tenant or protected tenant. If the Mamlatdar finds that he is a tenant or a protected tenant he has to send his finding to the Civil Court which has to decide the suit in the light of that finding.
If, on the other hand. his finding is to the contrary, the civil court will have to decide tlre suit on the basis that the person docs not possess the status claimed by him. Initially, therefore, the matter has to be decided
by the Mamlatdar and subject to the result of any appeal or revi- sion under the Act his decision will be final. I would. however. make it clear that when r say this I am not considering whether finality attaches to a decision of the Mamlatdar as to a juri.sdic- tional fact.
TI1e question required by the Act to be decided by the Mam· latdar may be one of fact only or as is the case in the appeal before us, a mixed question of fact and law. The civil court
hefore which the suit was brought raised the following issues bearing upon it : (2) Whether the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and i\gricultural Lands Act would be applicable to the
suit Su~ey Numbers? ( 3) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to enter- tain suit in view of section 85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
( 5) Whether defendant proves that he is a perma- II nent tenant of the suit land ?" (I) (1958! Bom. L.R. 8(P.B.) ISHYERLAL v. MOTIBHAI (Mudholkar, J.) The first and third of tl!ese had to be decided by the Mamlat- dar and the second by the Civil Court in the light of the findings of the Mamlatdar on the other two issues.
The limitations placed on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would necessarily extend to the entire hierarchy of courts, including this Court before which the decision of the Civil Court can be challenged in appeal. It B is in the light of this legal position that I hold that the District Court could not dismiss the appellant's suit.
What this Court can, however, do is only to set aside the judgment of the District Court and remand the suit to the Civil Court with the direction that issues Nos. 2 and 5 be remitted to the Mamlatdar for his findings.
It is not open to this Court to examine for itself the c various enactments, construe the provisions and state its conclu- sions as to their applicability to the case before us. The jurisdic-
tion to do any of these things in an appeal of the kind before us is, in my view, barred by the combined operation of ss. 70(b) and 8 5 (I ) of the Ac~. I would, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of all the courts below and remit the suit to the court of first inst- ance with the direction that it should remit issues 2 and 5 to the Mamlatdar for decision and upon receiving his findings, decide the suit on the basis of his findings.
I would further direct that costs so far incurred shall be costs in the suit and shall abide the final decision of the /is. ORDER In accordance with the opinion of the majority the decree
passed by the High Court and the District Court is set aside and the appeal remanded to the District Court with the direction that it do restore the appeal to its original number .and do proceed according to law.
Appellant's legal representatives will pay the costs of this appeal to the respondent. Costs in the District Court will -abide the event. L6Sup.Cl/65–M