Tenancy rights under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act must be adjudicated by the Competent Authority, and Civil Courts lack jurisdiction to decide such issues.

JUDGMENT :

(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

1. The appellants take exception to common judgment and order dated 08.05.2024 passed by District Judge-1, Kallam in Regular Civil Appeal Nos.03/2024 and 04/2024, thereby quashing and setting aside judgment and decree dated 03.02.2024 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kallam in Regular Civil Suit No.1145/2019 and remanding proceeding to the Trial Court for framing issue of tenancy with further direction to refer the same to Tenancy Authority for final disposal. (Hereinafter, parties are referred to by their original status for the sake of convenience and brevity).

2. The appellants are original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.1145/2019. They filed suit seeking relief of perpetual injunction against respondents in respect of land bearing Gut No.72 admeasuring 7H 80R situated at Shelka Dhanora, Tal. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad.

3. It is the case of plaintiffs that they are sons of Kisanlal and Madanbai Lodha. They inherited the suit property. The defendant no.1 has been declared as protected tenant to the extent of 3H 40R out of Gut No.72. On 01.06.2019, the defendants caused obstruction to plaintiffs cultivation over the suit property. The defendants filed written statement as well as counter claim contending that Gut No.72 is formed out of Survey Nos.34, 35, 39 and 43 during the consolidation. Kisanlal Lodha was original owner of all four survey numbers. Late Sopan Maruti Kore (Mali) (father of defendant no.1) was cultivating Survey Nos.35 and 43 as protected tenant. After his death, defendant no.1 acquired possession. Late Sopan Kore was already declared as restricted owner of Survey No.43. Although there is no declaration as regards to the Survey No.35, he never surrendered tenancy rights in respect of said land and continued in the possession. Accordingly, defendants sought dismissal of suit of the plaintiffs and decree of perpetual injunction against plaintiffs from causing obstruction over part of land from Survey No.35.

4. In written statement to the counter claim, plaintiffs contended that on 04.07.1980, Sopan Kore declared as protected tenant to Survey No.43 admeasuring 3H 30R and made oral surrender of his tenancy right in respect of Survey No.35. Thereafter, late Sopan Kore never raised his claim as to the tenancy right or possession over Survey No.35. The plaintiffs are owners and possessors of land Survey No.35.

5. The Trial Court framed issues based on the pleadings of the parties and finally observed that the questions as to whether Sopan Kore was a tenant of Survey No.35 and whether his tenancy was validly terminated fall under the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, “HT & AL Act”). However, considering nature of claim and counter claim in this suit, decision has to be based on evidence of actual possession of the parties. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed, and the counterclaim was dismissed.

6. Aggrieved defendants filed Regular Civil Appeal Nos.03/2024 and 04/2024 against decree in the suit as well as counter claim. The Appellate Court observed that although plaintiffs as well as defendants are claiming decree of perpetual injunction against each other, the issue as to the tenancy of Sopan Kore over disputed Survey No.35 needs reference to the Competent Authority under Section 99 of the HT & AL Act. Consequently, partly allowed the Appeals and remanded the proceedings to the Trial Court with following directions:

“1. The judgment and decree passed by Ld. Trial Court in RCS No.1145/2019 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Ld. Trial Court with following directions-

i) Readmit the RCS No.1145/2019 under it's original number along with counter claim.

ii) The evidence recorded during the original trial shall be the evidence during the trial after remand. The parties are not at liberty to adduce any oral or documentary evidence after remand.

lii) The parties shall appe