- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Trimbak Sopana Girme v. Gangaram Mhatarba Yadav
Factual and Procedural Background
A suit was filed by the opponent against the petitioner in the Civil Court seeking possession on the ground that the petitioner was a trespasser. The petitioner contended that he was not a trespasser but a protected tenant. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, held that the issue of whether the defendant was a trespasser or a protected tenant fell under the jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar under section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy Act and therefore he had no jurisdiction to try the issue. Consequently, the learned Judge ordered the plaintiff to present the suit to the proper Court without passing any decree, despite expressing his opinion that the defendant was a trespasser. The matter was appealed to the learned Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar, who held that the Civil Court did have jurisdiction to decide whether the defendant was a tenant or trespasser and remanded the matter back to the trial Court for disposal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue of whether the defendant is a trespasser or a protected tenant under the Bombay Tenancy Act.
- Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted by section 85 of the Tenancy Act and the role of the Mamlatdar under section 70(b) in deciding the status of a defendant as tenant or protected tenant.
- Whether a suit against a trespasser lies exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or is subject to the Mamlatdar's jurisdiction when the issue of tenancy status arises.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (Mr. Tarkunde)
- A suit against a trespasser is only cognizable by the Civil Court.
- If an issue arises as to whether the defendant is a trespasser or a protected tenant, the Civil Court should decide it.
- If the defendant is found to be a trespasser, the Civil Court can pass a decree for possession.
- If the defendant is a protected tenant, the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction and the suit should be dismissed or referred to the Mamlatdar.
- Section 70(b) applies only to proceedings filed before the Mamlatdar and not to suits against trespassers filed in Civil Courts.
- Under section 29(2), possession from a tenant requires an order of the Mamlatdar, but possession from a trespasser falls under Civil Court jurisdiction.
- Accepting this argument avoids the Mamlatdar deciding issues that arise only in suits against trespassers.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Govindram Salamatrai v. Dharmpal | High Court's jurisdiction to decide whether a defendant is a licensee or tenant under section 28 of the Rent Act before Small Cause Court's jurisdiction arises. | The Court distinguished this precedent from the present case, noting that unlike section 28 of the Rent Act which confers jurisdiction to Small Cause Courts to try landlord-tenant suits, section 70(b) of the Tenancy Act confers jurisdiction on the Mamlatdar to determine tenancy status, thus ousting Civil Court jurisdiction. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the legislative scheme under the Bombay Tenancy Act, particularly sections 70(b) and 85. Section 85 ousts the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to decide matters assigned to the Mamlatdar, and section 70(b) specifically empowers the Mamlatdar to determine whether a person is a tenant or a protected tenant. The Court rejected the argument that the Civil Court can decide the issue of tenancy status in suits against trespassers, reasoning that such a position would create conflicting decisions between Civil Courts and Revenue Courts (Mamlatdar), undermining the legislative intent to centralize tenancy status determinations with the Mamlatdar. The Court emphasized that the question of tenancy status is a fact in issue for the Mamlatdar and not merely a jurisdictional fact. The Court distinguished the present case from the precedent under the Rent Act, highlighting the different jurisdictional schemes. The Court held that the provisions ousting Civil Court jurisdiction must be strictly construed but concluded that the language and scheme of section 70(b) clearly indicate that all questions regarding the status of a party claiming protected tenancy fall within the Revenue Court's jurisdiction, thereby ousting Civil Court jurisdiction.
Holding and Implications
The Court held that the trial Court was correct in holding that it had no jurisdiction to try the issue of whether the defendant was a trespasser or a protected tenant, and that the learned Assistant Judge erred in remanding the matter for trial in the Civil Court.
The order of the Trial Court is restored and the order of the lower appellate Court is set aside. Rule absolute with costs.
The direct effect of this decision is that questions regarding tenancy status under the Bombay Tenancy Act must be adjudicated by the Mamlatdar, not Civil Courts, thereby affirming the ouster of Civil Court jurisdiction in such matters. No new precedent beyond this jurisdictional clarification was established.
Chagla, C.J:—
A suit was filed by the opponent against the petitioner for possession in the Civil Court. The opponent's contention was that the petitioner was a trespasser. The defence taken up by the petitioner was that he was not a trespasser, but a protected tenant. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, came to the conclusion that the issue as to whether the defendant was a trespasser or a protected tenant was an issue which was triable under s. 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy Act by the Mamlatdar, and he had no jurisdiction to try the issue. Therefore, he ordered the plaintiff to present the suit to the proper Court. In coming to this conclusion, the learned Judge expressed an opinion that he was convinced that the defendant was a trespasser, but inasmuch, in the view of the learned Judge, he had no jurisdiction, he did not pass any decree in favour of the plaintiff. The matter was taken in appeal to the learned Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar, and the learned Assistant Judge held that the Court had jurisdiction to decide whether the defendant was a tenant or a trespasser, and he remanded the matter for disposal to the trial Court.
How, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted under s. 85 of the Tenancy Act, and that section provides that 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 (I am quoting the material part of the section); and under s. 70(b), one of the duties and functions of the Mamlatdar is to decide whether a person is a tenant or a protected tenant. A very interesting argument has been advanced by Mr. Tarkunde, and his contention is that a suit against a trespasser is only cognizable by the Civil Court, and, therefore, if an issue arises in such a suit as to whether the defendant is a trespasser or a protected tenant, it is for the Civil Court to decide that issue; if the defendant is a trespasser, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to pass a decree for possession; if, on the other hand, the Civil Court comes to the conclusion that the defendant is a protected tenant, then the Court would have no jurisdiction and the suit would have to be dismissed or sent to the Mamlatdar to dispose of it according to law. Mr. Tarkunde's further contention is that it is only to those issues which the Mamlatdar is required to determine in a proceeding which should be filed before the Mamlatdar that s. 70(b) has any application. Now, under s. 29(2), no landlord shall obtain possession of any land or dwelling house held by a tenant except under an order of the Mamlatdar. Therefore, if a landlord wants to obtain possession from his tenant, he cannot approach a Civil Court, but must go to the Mamlatdar. Mr. Tarkunde says that, when a landlord files such an application, the Mamlatdar has jurisdiction to decide any issues that arise in such an application, but that, when a person files a suit against a trespasser, that is not a proceeding of which the Mamlatdar can take cognisance, and as it is only the Civil Court that can take cognisance, any issue that arises in such proceedings or such suit can legitimately be tried by the Civil Court without offending the provisions of s. 29(2). Now, if this argument was sound, really no occasion would ever arise for the Mamlatdar to decide the issue as to whether a person is a tenant or a protected tenant, because, if a person could only go to the Mamlatdar in those cases where he admitted that the defendant was a protected tenant, then the issue as to whether the person was a tenant or a protected tenant would not arise. Such an issue can only arise when there is a dispute as to the status of the particular person, and it is only when an allegation is made that the person is not a tenant or a protected tenant that the Mamlatdar would be called upon to try such an issue. Now, it is clear that the question whether a person is a tenant or a protected tenant is not a jurisdictional fact as far as the Mamlatdar is concerned, but is a fact in issue. The jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar does not depend upon the person being a tenant or a protected tenant. On the contrary, the Mamlatdar himself has been given the jurisdiction to try the question as to whether a person is a tenant or a protected tenant. Reference may be made to a decision of this Court in Govindram Salamatrai v. Dharmpal. There we were considering s. 28 of the Rent Act, and we held that the High Court had the jurisdiction to decide whether a defendant was a licensee or a tenant when a suit was filed by the plaintiff to eject a licensee and the defendant took up the contention that he was a tenant and not a licensee. We pointed out that it was not left to the Small Cause Court under s. 28 of the Rent Act to decide whether the defendant was a tenant or not; that, on the contrary, the special jurisdiction conferred upon the Small Cause Court emanated from the fact that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was that of landlord and tenant, and that, if that relationship did not exist, the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction at all, and therefore the High Court had the jurisdiction to determine the issue whether the defendant was a tenant or not, and it was only if the defendant was a tenant that the matter had to be sent to the Small Cause Court to be disposed of under s. 28. Now, it will be immediately realised that there is a vital distinction between the position in law under s. 28 of the Rent Act and S. 70(b) of the Tenancy Act. Section 28 of the Rent Act confers jurisdiction upon the Small Cause Court to try suits between landlord and tenant. S. 70(b) of the Tenancy Act confers jurisdiction upon the Mamlatdar to determine whether a person is a tenant or a protected tenant. There is another very serious difficulty which would arise if Mr. Tarkunde's view were to be accepted. Assuming that the Civil Court was to hold that the defendant was a protected tenant, Mr. Tarkunde concedes that, under those circumstances, the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff or to deal further with the suit and the matter will have to go to the Mamlatdar. Suppose in the proceeding taken before the Mamlatdar by the landlord the Mamlatdar came to the conclusion that the defendant was not a protected tenant. We would then have one decision by the Civil Court and a contrary decision on the same point by the Revenue Court, and the question would arise which view was to prevail. It is in order to avoid such a conflict that the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine the issue as to whether the defendant is a protected tenant or not. Mr. Tarkunde says that the issue before the Civil Court is not whether the defendant is a protected tenant or not, but the issue is whether the defendant is a trespasser or a protected tenant. In my opinion, when the Legislature has left it to the Mamlatdar to decide the issue whether the defendant is a protected tenant or not, it implies that he must decide that the defendant is not a trespasser in order to hold that he is a tenant or a protected tenant and he must also hold that he is a trespasser in order to determine that he is not a tenant or a protected tenant. I agree with Mr. Tarkunde that the provisions in law which oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court must be strictly construed. But considering it as strictly as I can, looking to the language used by the Legislature in S. 70(b) of the Tenancy Act, and looking to the scheme of the Act, it seems to me clear that all questions with regard to the status of a party, when the party claims the status of a protected tenant, are left to be determined by the Revenue Court, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted.
In my opinion, therefore, the trial Court was right and the learned Assistant Judge was in error.
The result is the order of the Trial Court must be restored and the order of the lower appellate Court set aside. Rule absolute with costs.
Rule absolute.
K.B.S
Alert