Judgment

SIKRI, J.:- This appeal by certificate granted under Article 133 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench in a Letters Patent appeal allowing the appeal and restoring the decree made in favour of the plaintiff Ganpatlal - respondent before us and hereinafter called the respondent - by the Trial Court as confirmed by the District Court.

2. The facts relevant for the determination of the points raised before us are as follows: The respondent, Ganpatlal, was the owner of Field Survey No. 56, measuring 25 acres 4 gunthas, in Yeotmal District. It appears that the respondent used to lease the land to the defendant Dewaji - appellant before us and hereinafter called the appellant- on yearly lease. For the year 1950-5l he gave the land to the appellant on the condition that at the end of the year the lease will stand determined and the appellant will hand over possession. On May 7, 1951, the respondent served a notice on the appellant requiring him to vacate the land in suit. The appellant, however, continued to remain in possession. Thereupon the respondent filed a suit on September 17, 1951, praying for possession, damages and mesne profits. On November 15, 1951, the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 (Madhya Pradesh No. XXIV of 1951) - hereinafter called the 195l Act - came into force , Section 16 of which provides as follows:

"Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall entertain any suit instituted, or application made, to obtain a decision or order on any matter which a Revenue officer is by or under this Act, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of."

3. One of the pleas which the appellant took was that he had been recorded as a protected tenant under the 1951 Act and that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to eject him in view of Section 8 of that Act. The Trial Court held that the appellant was not a protected tenant under Section 3 (3) of the 1951 Act and the Civil Court had jurisdiction.

4. The appellant then appealed to the District Judge and the Additional District Judge held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction. He observed that "there is nothing in this Section(Section 16 of the 1951 Act) to suggest that the powers of the Civil Court were in any way curtailed in regard to the question whether a particular person was a tenant or not under Section 3 of the Act. Moreover, there is nothing in that Act to show that it was intended to apply to suits which were pending at the date when this Act came into force". By the time the appeal was heard by the Additional District Judge, Section 16 of the 1951 Act had been substituted by Sections 16, 16A and 16B by the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases (Amendment) Act 1953 - hereinafter called the 1953 Act. These Sections run as follows:

"16(1) Whenever any question arises whether any transaction between a landholder and a person claiming to be his lessee is a lease within the meaning of this Act, such question shall be decided by the Revenue Officer.

(2) In deciding the question referred to in sub-section (1), the Revenue Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or in Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act 1908, or in any other law for the time being in force, have power to inquire into and determine the real nature of the transaction and shall be at liberty notwithstanding anything contained in any law as aforesaid, to admit evidence of any oral agreement or a statement or unregistered document with a view to such determination.

(3) Any decision of the Revenue Officer under this Section shall be binding on the parties to the proceedings and persons claiming through them.

16-A (l) Whenever any question as is referred to in Section 16 arises before a Civil Court in any suit or proceeding, the Court shall, unless such question has already been determined by a Revenue Officer, refer the question to