This Revision raises a question of interpretation of Section 70 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Plaintiff sued the Defendant-Petitioner for possession of the suit property. The Defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was not his landlord and that he was a tenant of some third party. He moved the trial Court to stay further proceedings in the suit and to refer the matter to the Mamlatdar for determination of issues which are peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar. The learned trial judge rejected this application and passed the following order:
“Inasmuch as the Defendant has set up title to the suit land in the third party, it is necessary to decide first the Privity of contract of lease between plaintiff in her own right and defendant. Unless that is done, the Tenancy Court will not be in a position to know as to who is the real land-lord of the Defendant and against whom the crop-share is to be determined. Before asking any of the parties to-go to the Tenancy Court for declaration or determination of crop-share, it is proper to decide Issue No. 2 in this behalf. I, therefore, refuse the prayer at this stage and set down Issue Nos. 2 and 5 for preliminary hearing.”
Sri Bhatta, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contends that the order under Revision was passed without jurisdiction. According to him, once his client pleads that he is a tenant, then the Civil Court is deprived of its jurisdiction to determine any one of the issues till the Mamlatdar has given a decision under Section 70 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar is a statutory jurisdiction. It is confined to matters included in Section 70 aforesaid. According to Sri Bhatta, his client's case falls within the ambit of Section 70(b) or at any rate, under Section 70(o). Section 70(b) reads as follows:—
“To decide whether a person is a tenant or a protected tenant or a permanent tenant.”
Section 70(o) is:
“To decide such other matters as may be referred to him by or under this Act.”
Reading Section 70 as a whole, there could be no doubt that Section 70(o) is only a residuary clause which must be read ejusdem generis to matters referred to in the other sub-sections. It cannot be interpreted as to mean that any and every matter can be referred to the Mamlatdar. I am unable to place such a broad construction on this clause. Hence the only question that I have to consider is whether the present case comes within the scope of Section 70(b). I am unable to read the sub-section as one authorising the Mamlatdar to decide as to who is the true owner as between the Plaintiff and the third party put forward by the Defendant. That question must be decided by the Civil Court. There is no point in referring the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to the Mamlatdar without previously deciding as to whether the Plaintiff is the land-lord of the Defendant or not. If the Plaintiff is not the landlord of the Defendant, the suit fails and the entire suit will have to be dismissed without any further enquiry as regards the other disputes. In my judgment, the course adopted by the trial Court is the most appropriate one.
Sri Bhatta invites my attention to the decision of his Lordship Chagla C.J in Trimbak Sopana Girme…(Original Defendant), v. Gangaram Mhatarba Yadav…(Original Plaintiff), Opponent*(1). In the said decision his Lordship decided that the jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar is not confined to merely cases where both parties admit the relationship of the landlord and tenant but it is also within the jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar to decide whether the Defendant is the tenant of the Plaintiff-landlord or not. A jurisdiction to decide whether a particular party is a tenant also includes a jurisdiction to decide whether he is not a tenant. This can be taken as a well accepted proposition of Law. The same is the view held in the case of Dhondi Tukaram v. Dodoo Piraji(2). It is also true that the Mamlatdar will have jurisdiction to decide incidental questions which are necessary for deciding questions which are peculiarly within his jurisdiction. For this purpose, we could rely on Shivappa Satwappa v. Gajanan Chintaman(3) and also H.R Desai v. B.M Batliwala(4). The decisions in those cases do not help the case put forward by the Petitioner.
In the result, this Revision petition fails and the same is dismissed with costs.