A change in law that affects the jurisdiction of the Civil Court must be done either by express terms or by the use of such terms as would necessarily lead to the inference of such exclusion.

Judgement

AHMAD, C. J. : This miscellaneous appeal in view of some importance of the point of law involved in it, has been under the order dated the 25th April, 1964 directed to be placed before a Division Bench. It is therefore now before us for hearing.

2. The appeal is by the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for declaration that the respondent-defendant is not a 'tenant ' of the lands in suit and for recovery of possession thereof. It is no more in dispute that the respondent-defendant is not an 'occupancy raiyat ' in respect of the suit lands; but his claim is that he is in any case at least a statutory tenant within the meaning of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act 1948 (Orissa Act III of 1948). As such he pleads that he is protected from eviction under the provisions of the aforesaid Orissa Tenants Protection Act and the Orissa Tenants Relief Act, 1955 (Orissa Act V of 1955); and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.

3. Originally, the trial court relying on the principle of law as laid down by this Court in the case of Pandab Bissoyi v. Magiti Sasamal, AIR 1957 Orissa 17 held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide whether the defendant was a statutory tenant under the Orissa Tenants Relief Act. It therefore dismissed the suit. But that decision was reversed in appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge who held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the question as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Accordingly it remanded the suit for re-trial. Against this order of remand there was an appeal taken in the High Court. But in the meantime while that appeal was pending the aforesaid decision of this Court reported in AIR 1957 Orissa 17 was reversed by the Supreme Court by its judgment dated the 20th Sept. 1961 which is reported in Magiti Sasamal v. Pandab Bissoi, AIR 1962 SC 547. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that it would be difficult to uphold the argument that the dispute as regards the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant falls to be determined by the Collector under S. 7(1) of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act, 1948 and accordingly held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide whether the respondent defendant is a statutory tenant under the Orissa Tenants Protection Act and the Orissa Tenants Relief Act. In pursuance of this decision of the Supreme Court the High Court thereafter by its judgment dated the 4th January 1962 upheld the order of remand passed by the learned Subordinate Judge and dismissed the appeal.

4. Thus the case came back to the original Court for trial on merits, and it held that "the defendant is not a tenant in continuous possession of the suit land and as such is not protected under the Orissa Tenants Protection Act, or the Orissa Tenants Relief Act." Thus the suit was this time decreed by the trial court. That led to the appeal by the respondent defendant. But before that appeal could be taken up for bearing, the Orissa Legislature passed the Orissa Tenants Relief (Amendment) Act 1962 (Orissa Act 29 of 1962) and thereby a new section -Section 11-A was introduced in the Orissa Tenants Relief Act which came into force on the 30th October 1962. This new section (11A) contains a number of sub-sections. But for the purposes of this case, the Sub-Sections which are relevant are only Sub-Sections (1) and (2). These two Sub-Sections read as follows :

"11-A - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any of the other provisions of the Act the Collector shall decide all disputes regarding the existence of the relationship of land-lord and tenant arising in the course of any proceeding under this Act.

(2) Where a dispute of the nature specified in Sub-Section (1) is raised or is pending before the Collector, no proceeding relating to such dispute shall be maintainable or he continued in any Civil Court, and the decision of the Collector shall, subject to the provisions o