JUDGMENT - SAWANT P.B., J.: - This is a reference made by a learned Single Judge. The short question that arises in the case is : Has the Civil Court Jurisdiction to protect the possession of a party to the suit when he claims to be in possession in his capacity as the tenant either while making the reference or pending the reference under section 85-A of the Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. In the present case, the plaintiffs claim to be the tenants of an agricultural land situate at Dhovali, Taluka Vasai, District Thane. It is also claimed by them that they were entitled to be declared as statutory purchasers of the suit land under the provision of the Act, However, for some reasons the proceedings for fixation of the price of the land which were once commenced were subsequently dropped. They claim to be in possession of the land since many years prior to the suit and have approached the Court since the defendant-landlords are trying to interfere with the possession. It also appears that the proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal procedure Code had preceded the suit and an order of attachment of the land was also passed by the Taluka Magistrate in the said proceedings. The defendants had claimed that possession of the land was taken over by the Magistrate from the plaintiffs under the said order of attachment, which claim is however contested by the plaintiffs.

3. The Trial Court as well as the Appeal Court have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have proved their possession. However, an interim injunction claimed by the plaintiffs against the defendants to protect the possession was refused by them solely in the ground that in view of the provisions of section 85-A of the Act the issue as to whether the plaintiffs were tenants of the suit land could not be decided by the Civil Court and had to be referred to the Tenancy Authorities for their decision.

4. Against the order of refusal of injunction by the courts below, the present civil revision application is preferred to this Court. The learned Single Judge before whom the application came referred the issue to this Court in view of the view taken by another learned Single Judge which is reported in 1982 Mh.L.J. 777 (Shravan v. Arun)1, where it is held that since the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the issue of tenancy it has also no jurisdiction to protect the possession of the alleged tenant by way of an interim injunction.

5. As has been urged by Mr. Dalvi appearing for the plaintiffs-petitioners, this view is contrary to the decision of earlier as well as later judgments of this Court. It has been held in the following decision that notwithstanding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue of tenancy, the possession of the party, if prima facie proved, can be protected by an interlocutory order. Those cases are :

(1) (Sujanabai v. Motiram)2, 1980 Mh.L.J. 578;

(2) (Maruti Sambha v. Parshuram)3, 1983 Mh.L.J. 958:

(3) (Baliran Maruti v. Dadu Govind)4, 1985 Mh.L.J. 311: and

(4) (Laxmi Sonu v. Sawanta Bapu)5, 1985 Mh.L.J. 314.

The learned single judge who has taken the contrary view has relied on the decision of another learned Single Judge of this Court reported in (Pandurang Appa Patil v. Ananda Dhau Ulpe)6, 1977 T.L.R. 29. We have examined the said decision and find that the facts in that case have no relevance to the issue which was involved before the learned Judge and which is also involved in the present case. In that case, the question was whether the trial Court was justified in refusing to make a reference of the issue of tenancy to the tenancy Court. The trial Court had refused to make a reference on the ground that the relief claimed in the suit was for injunction simpliciter. This Court came to the conclusion that the relief was both for declaration that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property in his capacity as a tenant and also for injunction. In th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document