The decision of the civil Court anterior to the initiation of the proceedings under the Act was relevant and should not have been ignored by the second respondent.

S. Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. The petitioner herein wanted the status of a tenant within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act (10 of 1969), hereinafter referred to as the Act. He succeeded partly before the 4th respondent. There were appeals, one by the petitioner and the other by the first respondent who is admittedly the land owner within the meaning of the Act. The appeal by the first respondent was dismissed and the appeal by the petitioner was allowed. As a result, the petitioner fully succeeded in his claim to have his name recorded as the tenant under the Act. The first respondent preferred a revision to the second respondent and the second respondent opined differently, allowed the revision and directed deletion of the name of the petitioner from the record of tenancy rights. That is how the petitioner is before this Court by way of his writ petition.

2. Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, learned Counsel for the petitioner, apart from canvassing the merits of the case, submits that anterior to the initiation of the proceeding under the Act there was a decision rendered by the civil Court in O.S. No. 1015 of 1974, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam to which litigation the petitioner and the predecessor in title of the first respondent were parties, wherein the question of demise of the lands to the petitioner as a tenant was put in issue and has been answered in favour of the petitioner and that decision has been marked as Ex. B1 in the case and yet the second respondent following the pronouncement of the single Judge of this Court in Alwar v. Tahsildar and Record Officer , has held that the decision of the Civil Court will have to be ignored and the authorities under the Act alone can. decide the relevant issue. Learned Counsel submits that the ratio of the Full Bench in Periathambi Gounder v. The Dt. Revenue Officer, Coimbatore , does not preclude the Civil Court from deciding the jurisdictional issue such as the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and the subject matter of the demise, etc., and hence the decision of the civil Court rendered anterior to the initiation of the proceedings under the Act is certainly relevant and ought not to have been eschewed out of consideration as done by the second respondent. After adverting to the ratio of the Full Bench (in that case), in Balasubramania v. Shamsuthalrees (1985) 98 L.W. 536, a Bench of this Court to which I was also a party, observed as follows:

It would be a different matter if the matter had gone to the civil Court and a decision had been rendered by the civil Court on those questions anterior to the decision of the authority under the Act and the civil Court thereby holding that the lease in favour of the first respondent by the second defendant could not be legally sustained and has got to be ignored in the eye of law. The civil Court can certainly go into these jurisdictional issues, which are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the authority under the Act. But, such is not the case here.

Of course, there the jurisdictional issue came to be decided by the authorities under the Act anterior to the decision by the civil Court. In view of the above legal position, the second respondent was not in order in eschewing from consideration the decision of the civil Court referred to above and I am not expressing any opinion as to what would be the consequences if that civil decision had been taken note of. Since there is an omission to consider the implication of the decision of the civil Court as per Ex. B1 by the second respondent, I am constrained to interfere in writ jurisdiction, and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the file of the second respondent for him to consider the same afresh, assessing the implications and relevancy of the findings rendered in the decision as as per Ex. B1, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The second respondent will certai