( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order passed by the High Court of Andhra pradesh, allowing the revision petition preferred by the respondents herein, holding that the proceedings initiated by the appellant under S. 19 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Mandal Revenue officer, were not within the jurisdiction of the aforesaid Revenue Court, hence, the same could not be entertained by the Mandal Revenue Officer.

( 2 ) THE brief facts are that the appellant filed two petitions before the mandal Revenue Officer on 12/8/1986, by one of which a prayer for eviction of the respondents was made on account of arrears of rent relating to the period from 1982-83 to 1984-85. By means of the second petition the amount of arrears of rent was claimed. The Mandal Revenue Officer by his order dated 22/9/1992 rejected the petition of the appellant for eviction of the respondents on the ground that necessary procedure as prescribed under the law was not followed. But insofar as the other petition claiming the amount of arrears of rent for the period of three years, as indicated above, was concerned, the petition was allowed. The present appellant preferred an appeal against the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer rejecting his petition for eviction of the respondents.

( 3 ) IT may be mentioned here that the respondents did not prefer any appeal against the order allowing the petition for arrears of rent which the respondents were required to pay. The appeal preferred by the appellant was allowed by order dated 6/2/1993, holding that due procedure as required under the law was followed. Hence, the order passed by the Mandal Revenue officer was set aside, the petition in regard to the eviction was also allowed. The respondents preferred a revision in the High Court which was allowed in favour of the respondents.

( 4 ) THE main contention which seems to have been pressed and considered by the High Court was that the Mandal Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and decide the same for eviction of the respondents since it involved a dispute of title between the parties. In this connection it will be relevant to refer to the two provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. S. 99 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court which reads as under:

"99. Bar of jurisdiction.- (1) Save as provided in this Act 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 tahsildar, Tribunal or Collector or by the Board of Revenue or Government. (2) No order of the Tahsildar, Tribunal or Collector or of the Board of revenue or Government made under this Act, shall be questioned in any civil or criminal court. "

( 5 ) S. 19 of the Act deals with the termination of the tenancy, the relevant parts of which are quoted below:

"19. Termination of tenancy.- (1) * * * (2) The landholder may terminate a tenancy on the ground that the tenant- (a) (i) has failed to pay in any year, within fifteen days from the day fixed under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act 1317 F for the payment of the last instalment of land revenue due for the land concerned in that year, the rent of such land for that year;"

( 6 ) THE fallout of the two provisions quoted above is that the Mandal revenue Officer would be entitled to and shall have jurisdiction to entertain the petitions only in such matters as may be provided for under the Act e. g. S. 19 of the Act which may involve disputes relating to termination of tenancy of a tenant by the landlord and the disputes decided by the Revenue authorities under the Act. Other matters are entertainable by the civil court as the bar of jurisdiction of the civil court as provided under S. 99 of the act would not be attracted in these matters. The High Court while