IMPORTANT POINT
The jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred in matters concerning tenancy rights that are to be decided by the Mamlatdar under the Agricultural Tenancy Act, particularly when the relief sought is a negative declaration regarding tenancy.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Initially vide order dtd. 5/1/2023, this revision application was dismissed after hearing the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. Subsequently, the Applicant No.2 who appears in person filed Miscellaneous Civil Application No.167/2023 for recall of the order dtd. 5/1/2023 on the ground that she was unaware about the date of the matter which was fixed on 5/1/2023 and accordingly, failed to appear and argue the matter. Vide order dtd. 27/4/2023, in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.167/2023, the prayer of Applicant No.2 was allowed since the Respondents also agreed for recall of the order dtd. 5/1/2023 and to give an opportunity to Applicant No.2 to argue the matter afresh.

2. Accordingly, the matter was taken up at the admission stage itself with the understanding that it would be decided finally, with consent of the parties.

3. Heard learned Amicus Curiae Mr D. Zaveri, the Applicant No.2 in person, learned Counsel Mr Prasheen Lotlikar appearing with Mr Bhavesh Lotlikar for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Counsel Ms Sneha D. Shetye appearing for Respondent Nos.4(A) to 4(H) and 7 to 14.

4. The Applicant No.2 appeared in person and submitted that impugned order dtd. 15/10/2019 in Regular Civil Suit No.53/2008 is unsustainable as the learned Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint.

5. It is the main contention of Applicant No.2 that Trial Court is not having jurisdiction to decide the civil suit, in view of specific bar under Sec. 58 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act. She would submit that a declaration which the Plaintiff is seeking in the suit is in fact negative declaration claiming therein that the Applicant is not the tenant of the suit property. The other reliefs are consequential to the main relief of negative declaration.

6. The Applicant No.2 would then submit that initially Sec. 58 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act was amended by deleting SubSec. 2 and later on it was amended by adding Sec. 58B. According to her, when the statute was amended by inserting Sec. 58B, the jurisdiction of Civil Court was ousted to entertain the prayer for negative declaration and accordingly her application, though filed on the second occasion, ought to have been allowed thereby rejecting the plaint. In this respect, Applicant No.2 placed reliance on the following decisions:-

i. Smt. Madhumati Atchut Parab vs. Shri. Rajaram V. Parab; 2009(3) ALL MR 486,

ii. Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) Through L.R.s vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Through L.R.s and Ors.; Civil Appeal No.1382/2022,

iii. Smt. Isabella Johnson vs. M.A. Susai; 1991 AIR 993,

iv. Dattaram A. Arolkar and Others vs. The Mamlatdar of Mormugao and others; 2000(4) Bom.C.R. 669.

7. Learned Amicus Curiae Advocate Zaveri also supported contention of Applicant No.2 and claimed that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is impliedly barred and that Mamlatdar is the authority under the Agricultural Tenancy Act who is entitled to give negative declaration. Learned Amicus Curiae relied upon the following decisions:-

i. Shri Shripad Govind Sinai alias Ava Padmanaba Kamat (deceased) vs. Shri Bhivam Dulo Velip (Since Deceased); Second Appeal No.20/2008.

ii. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Today Homes and Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors.; (2020) 12 SCC 680.

8. Advocate Prasheen Lotlikar appearing for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Ms Sneha Shetye appearing for Respondent Nos.4 and 7 to 14, supported the impugned order and claimed that relief claimed in the suit cannot be granted by the Mamlatdar and therefore, the Civil Court is having jurisdiction under Sec. 9 of the CPC. Mr Lotlikar placed reliance on the following decisions:-

i. Inacio Martins (Deceased through Lrs. vs. Narayan Hari Naik and Ors.; (1993) 3 SCC 123,

ii. Madhumati Atchut Parab (Smt) vs. Rajaram V. Parab and Ors.; (2009) 4 SCC 183.

9. The rival contentions fall for determination of this Court.

10. R