The dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants, both claiming to be tenants of the landlady, was a dispute within the meaning of Section 7 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar.

ORDER :- This revision is directed against the judgment and order of the District Judge dated 31-7-72 dismissing the appeal of the petitioners/plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that they are the tenants in respect of the suit land named "Gorbat". They filed a suit to restrain the respondents/defendants from interfering in "any manner with the suit land. An application for a temporary injunction in terms of the main prayer in the suit was also filed by the plaintiffs. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that they were the tenants of the western part of the suit land since the time the previous landlady sold the land to the present landlady without giving them notice under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, hereinafter called "the Act" and that "the Act" does not make an exception between disputes arising between a landlord and a tenant and two tenants. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application for temporary injunction and gave liberty to the plaintiffs to obtain a declaration from the Mamlatdar to the effect that they were tenants of the entire "Gorbat" and thereafter to file a fresh application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, C.P.C. if they were so advised. The plaintiffs appealed and the District Judge dismissed the appeal after accepting the legal contention of the defendants.

2. The only point for my determination is whether assuming the defendants were tenants of the landlord, the dispute between them and the plaintiffs is a dispute within the meaning of Section 7 of "the Act". Section 7 of "the Act" reads as follows:-

"S. 7:- If any question arises whether any person is a tenant or should be deemed to be a tenant under this Act the Mamlatdar shall, after holding an inquiry, decide such question."

3. Reading this section out of context I would have to agree with the two courts below. However, the contention of Shri S. K. Kakodkar is that the section if interpreted in the light of the entire scheme of "the Act" clearly leads us to the conclusion that the word "tenant" used in the section means tenant of the plaintiffs/applicants and not of a third party i.e. of a person who is not a party to the suit and that therefore the dispute must be between the landlord or the superior holder and his tenant (defendants/respondents) or sub-tenants as the case may be.

4. A similar matter arose in the case of Rajaram Totaram Patel v. Mahipat Mahadu Patel AIR 1967 Bom 408 (FB) decided by a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court and their Lordships held that the question whether a person is a tenant is not limited to a narrower issue whether a person is a tenant of a particular landlord irrespective of the question whether the issue is raised by a landlord or a tenant or a co-tenant or any other person and that the question contemplated by Section 70 (b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act which corresponds to Section 7 of "the Act", is not limited to an issue between the landlord and the tenant. In the opinion of their Lordships it is the function of the Mamlatdar to decide whether a person is "a tenant" and when the Legislature has used that expression there is no reason for curtailing its amplitude by saying that the issue which the Mamlatdar has to decide is only an issue whether a person is a tenant of a particular landlord. Their Lordships concluded that where the issue was whether the defendant was the sole tenant of the field in dispute or the plaintiffs and the defendant were joint tenants of the field on the tillers day, the issue fell within the ambit of Section 70 (b) and it could not be tried by the civil court. They relied on Bhimaji v. Dundappa AIR 1966 SC 166 and approved Niyruthi Laxman Kondobahiri v. Shivdayal Laxminarayan Sarda AIR 1960 Bom 56 (FB). By the decision in AIR 1967 Bom 408 (FB) their Lordships set at rest the acute debate at the Bar that the question under Section 70 did not relate to a dispute between two persons who claimed to be the owners