The Revenue Officer has jurisdiction to determine the issue of whether there was a transaction between the parties which resulted in one of the parties becoming a lessee, even if the transaction is disputed.

1. The question that arises in this Full Bench lies in a very narrow compass. The question is : What is the proper construction to be placed upon Section 16(1) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act (XXIV of 1951).

2. The few facts which are necessary to state in order to understand the question raised are that that plaintiff and his brother Anandrao owned certain lands and there was a partition suit and pursuant to the decree in the partition suit survey No. 39/2 was allotted to Anandrao and survey No. 39/1 was allotted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff let out survey No 39/1 to the defendant. There was then an appeal and in appeal survey No. 39/1 was allotted to Anandrao and survey No. 39/2 to the plaintitf.

The plaintiff then filed a suit from which this application arises, contending that the defendant was not his lessee and he was a trespasser, and claiming possession of the survey No. 39/2. The defence of the defendant was that survey No. 39/2 was let out to him on his agreeing to surrender possession of the other survey number which had been let out to him by the plaintiff. A preliminary issue was raised before the learned. Judge by the defendant that only the Revenue Officer under Act XXIV of 1951 could decide the issue whether the defendant was a lessee of the plaintiff or not and the Court had no jurisdiction to decide this issue. The learned Judge held that this issue could be determined by the Civil Court, and the question that now arises before us is whether the learned Judge was right in the view that he took.

3. Now, Section 16(1) is in the following terms:--

"Whether any question arises whether any transaction between a landholder and a person claiming to be his lesseee is a lease within the meaning of this Act, such question shall be decided by the Revenue Officer."

In this case the defendant claims to be the lessee of the plaintiff; he also claims that the lease is a lease within the meaning of this Act, and in order to substantiate his case of a lease he puts forward a particular transaction, The plaintiff disputes that transaction and his contention is that there is no such transaction, that the defendant is not his lessee, and that he is a trespasser.

In order to fully understand the implications of Section 16(1) it is necessary to look at certain other provisions of the Act. Section 16(2) permits the Revenue Officer in deciding the question referred to in Sub-section (1) to ignore the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and the Indian Registration Act or any other law for the time being in force in order to determine the real nature of the transaction; and Section 16(3) makes the decision of the Revenue Officer under this section binding on the parties to the proceedings and persons claiming through them. Section 16-A provides :

"(1) Whenever any question as is referred to in Section 16 arises before a Civil Court in any suit or proceedings, the Court shall, unless such question has already been determined by a Revenue Officer, refer the question to the Revenue Officer for decision and shall stay the suit or proceeding so far as it relates to the decision of such question. .

(2) The Civil Court shall accept the decision of the Revenue Officer on the question and decide the suit or proceeding before it accordingly."

Now. "lease" has not been defined under the Act, but Section 3(1) provides :

"Every lease of land by a landholder entitling the lessee to hold larid in the agricultural year 1051-52 shall, subject to the provisions of Section 4, be deemed to be for a period of seven years from the commencement of that year unless such lease is for a period in excess of seven years from such commencement."

Section 3(2) applies the same provisions to a lease after the agricultural year 1951-52. It may b3 pointed out that it is the defendants case that the lease was given to him for the agricultural year 1952-53 and that by reason of the provision of Section 3(2) he became a protected lessee