( 1 ) ONE of the important question of law involved in all these four revision petitions is identical. It will therefore be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) THE question involved is whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant an interim injunction as regards possession in relation to agricultural lands is ousted by reason of addition of clause (nb) in sec. 70 if that section is read with secs. 85 and 85-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (which will be hereinafter referred to the Act ). The aforesaid addition was made by Act No. 5 of 1973. That amendment came into force on 3-3-1973. By Ordinance No. 7 of 1973 dated 30-12-1973 there was amendment in clause (ta) of sec. 74 of the Act and by that amendment an appeal has also been provided against the order passed by the Mamlatdar under sec. 70 (nb) of the Act. By Act No. 5 of 1973 sec. 85 of the Act was also amended to apply some of the provisions of the Act retrospectively for the purpose of suits in which making of reference to Tenancy Courts was necessary. It is also an admitted position that prior to the addition of clause (nb) in sec. 70 of the Act the Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction to grant such interim or temporary injunction.

( 3 ) THIS Court prior to the said amendment had an occasion to consider the question whether the Civil Courts jurisdiction to grant interim injunction was ousted on account of the position that the question whether a person is a tenant or not was to be decided by the Mamlatdar in Civil Revision Application No. 273 of 1967 decided on 5th July 1967 by my learned Brother J. B Mehta J. This contention raised on behalf of the tenant was negatived. The question therefore that is posed in all these four revision petitions whether the aforesaid addition of clause (nb) has made any change Regarding it.

( 4 ) MR. M. F. Solanki appearing for the petitioner or petitioners as the case may be in Civil Revision Applications Nos. 1042 of 1974 and 1046 of 1974 and Mr. F. B. Dabhi appearing for the petitioners in Civil Revision Application No. 352 of 1974 and Mr. M. B. Shah appearing for the petitioner in Civil Revision Application No. 910 of 1974 urged that under the Act which is a special Act power has been conferred on the Mamlatdar to grant a temporary injunction. It would necessarily oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It is submitted by them that even in a case where the reference regarding the issue of tenancy is made to a Tenancy Court by a Civil Court the Tenancy Court will have jurisdiction to grant temporary injunction. The moment the tenant raises such a plea of tenancy question whether ad interim injunction granted by the trial Court should be confirmed i. e. it should be made absolute has got to be referred to the tenancy Court in view of clause (nb) added in sec. 70 of the Act. Another course suggested was that it should grant some time to enable the parties to raise a question regarding grant of temporary injunction in the Tenancy Court when the reference reaches the Tenancy Court.

( 5 ) MR. B. N. Shah who had a similar question to be urged in another civil revision application which is still not ready was permitted to intervene. His submissions were:- (1) An affirmative statute giving a new right does not by itself and of necessity destroy a previously existing right such as invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Court but if the apparent intention of the legislature is that two rights should not exist together the previously existing right will be taken as destroyed. (2) Where the special Tribunal is invested by an Act of legislature for determining the question as to the rights which are creations of tie Act the jurisdiction of the tribunal is unless provided otherwise exclusive and the Civil Court cannot take cognizance of such matters. (3) Thirdly where the special Tribunal is invested by the legislature with the exclusive jurisdiction to determine its own authority in cer