Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Counsel for the respondents have contended that on a reading of the provisions of the Tenancy Act, it was clear that the Act has conferred certain rights on the tenants, conferred certain rights on landlords under the Act and provided a mechanism for deciding and settling disputes and/or granting reliefs under the Act. Issues which have to be decided or settled under the Act it is contended, are specifically excluded from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court such as when the real relief is that such a person is either a tranpasser or having some other status, but not that of a tenant. The issue whether a person is not a tenant would be an issue within the exclusive realm of the Civil Court as that issue will not be a question to be decided under section 7-A of the Tenancy Act. It is further pointed out that there are material differences between the provisions of the Tenancy Act and the Bombay Tenancy Act. In these circumstances even though the Bombay Tenancy Act may be a cognate legislation, none the less, the provisions of the Act not being pari materia, reliance cannot be placed on the judgments rendered under the Bombay Tenancy Act. It is then contended that it is the pleas in the pleadings that will confer jurisdiction. Under section 7 of the Tenancy Act the Mamlatdar is enjoined to decide the question whether a person is a tenant or was a tenant or should be deemed to be a tenant. It is contended that this will arise if a question arises. The question may arise in a civil suit where eviction is sought and the defendant raised a plea that he is a tenant. The question may arise whether a person is a deemed tenant under section 4 or section 5 of the Tenancy Act. This it is contended, can only be if a person question in legal status of a tenant. Section 7 is couched in a positive language. On that count also, it is contended that the Mamlatdar would have no jurisdiction. Thirdly, it is contended that there cannot be multiplicity of proceedings. The Act must be so read that a person could get relief before a single forum. If the plea is accepted that the Mamlatdar can give a negative declaration what follows is that in a case where possession has to be sought or injunction obtained, other proceedings would have to be initiated, one before the Mamlatdar and the other in the Civil Court. Courts, it is contended, must avoid multiplicity. Whereas the Civil Court under section 9 of the Tenancy Act can decide all issues, the Mamlatdar a creation of statute, can only check those questions in respect of which power has been conferred. It is contended that the Act itself contemplates cases where negative declaration can be given as in the case of section 4 of the Tenancy Act. Once the Legislature itself has conferred powers on the Mamlatdar to grant negative declaration in some cases, it must follow that jurisdiction is ousted in other cases. It is contended that it is apparent that it was the intention of the Legislature to limit the grant of negative declarations. If the intention of the Legislature, was otherwise, the Legislature could have so also provided for negative declaration in the other sections or could have avoided conferring such a power under section 4. It is a cardinal rule of interpretation, it is contended, to give effect to the language of the Act and the intention of the Legislature. Apart from that, it is contended that in the instant case, on facts, a purchase certificate has already been issued in favour of the respondents No. 4 and 5. Under these circumstances also, it is contended that the present Letters Patent Appeal must be dismissed.

The same propositions have thereafter also been laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court in The Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke & others, .

11. On the above touchstone, let us consider whether on the express language of the sections it is possible to construe and/or hold that the Mamlatdar would have jurisdiction to grant a negative declaration. As pointed out, the entire thrust is that if any question arises whether any person is or was a tenant, or should be deemed to be a tenant under the Act, the Mamlatdar shall, after holding enquiry, decide such question. A plain look at the language therefore, will lend support to the construction sought to be raised on behalf of the appellants that a negative declaration is also contemplated under section 7 of the Tenancy Act. It is also contended that if a positive declaration can be granted there should be no difficulty in granting a negative declaration. It is pointed out that in the event a suit is filed and an issue is framed and remitted to the Mamlatdar while deciding the said issue has also to decide whether a person is or not a tenant. If the Mamlatdar can embark upon such an enquiry on an issue being decided by it, which was framed before a Civil Court, there can be no difficulty in independently considering an application for deciding whether a person is not a tenant or a deemed tenant. The exercise, it is contended would be the same. The language also so reads. Comparison is made to the language of section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Section 70 of the Bombay Tenancy Act reads as under :---

15. In Smt. Gulabi Angtu Devidas & others (supra) the issue before the Division Bench of this Court arose while considering the language of section 29 and section 8-A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection From Eviction) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act".). It was sought to be contended that if the matter had to be decided under section 29 of the said Act, then no application would lie under section 8-A of the said Act. The matter arose thus. An application was filed for entering the applicant's name as mundkar in the register to be maintained under section 29 of the said Act. The application was dismissed. Instead of preferring an appeal, the applicant filed an application under section 8-A of the said Act before the Mamlatdar for a declaration that he was a mundkar. That application was resisted on the ground that the Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction after the application under section 29 was dismissed on merits. The application was dismissed. An appeal preferred was also dismissed. In revision, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded for disposal on merits. The order came to be challenged before this Court. The order of the Tribunal was set aside. A learned Judge held that dismissal of an application under section 29 prohibits institution of proceedings under section 8-A of the said Act. The issue before the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal was that there was a bar in maintaining such an application. On consideration of the language, the Court held that even if the application for entertaining application under section 29 of the said Act was dismissed, that would not preclude an application for declaration under section 8 of the said Act. While so deciding the Division Bench noted the language of section 8 of the said Act and has noted that the section enables a party to seek a declaration of right of mundkarship, or a negative declaration that a person in occupation is not a mundkar. The issue which arises in this case was not directly in issue. Those observations were made in the context where a fresh application could be maintainable. The issue whether a Mamlatdar under the Mundkar Act could give a negative declaration was not in issue. Those observations, therefore, cannot be said to be the ratio of the judgment.

When does a question arise for a Mamlatdar to decide under section 7 of the Tenancy Act. Where does it arise and if it so arises, which is the Court of competent jurisdiction. As noted earlier, the construction of the language of the Bombay Tenancy Act is that the Mamlatdar has jurisdiction to grant both negative and positive declarations. That is construed from the language of section 70(b). Section 70, which is reproduced earlier, speaks about the duties of the Mamlatdar, which has been held to include the duty to decide whether a person is or was at any time in the past, a tenant, etc. Ordinarily, all questions can be decided by a Civil Court. In the Bombay Tenancy Act, the language is construed on account of the duty cast on the Mamlatdar to decide whether a person is or is not a tenant. The language in the Tenancy Act is, "if any question arises". The question can only arise if a person is a tenant or a deemed tenant and that is denied. If a person is not claiming to be tenant or a deemed tenant can a party approach the Mamlatdar for a decision and will that be an issue to be decided by the Mamlatdar? Section 58(2) of the Tenancy Act contemplates that no Civil Court will have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under the Act required to be settled, dealt with or decided by the Mamlatdar. The question to be decided, settled or dealt with is whether a person is claiming to be a tenant or a deemed tenant. On a claim by a person can a decision on that issue be pre-empted by another who claims that he is not the tenant? If the issue arose of either a positive or negative declaration before the Civil Court there would be no difficulty unless the jurisdiction was ousted. When such an issue arises before the Civil Court the issue arises whether a person is or is not a tenant. The Civil Court will cease to have jurisdiction on that issue. This has an important bearing as it deals with the forum to decide the issue. If a person is not a tenant, then will the jurisdiction of a Civil Court be barred? Section 58(2) of the Tenancy Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of only those issues which have to be decided by the Mamlatdar under the Act. Therefore, a landlord who contends that a person is not his tenant would be contending that such a person is either a trespasser or has some other right. The issue to be decided in such a case is the other legal status, if any. The issue will not be whether a person is not a tenant. Such other legal issue can be decided by the Civil Court as its jurisdiction is not ousted. Such an issue is not also an issue to be decided exclusively by the Mamlatdar. Merely calling the relief as a negative declaration will not suffice. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such matters will not be ousted. If section 58(2) does not bar or oust this jurisdiction, then a civil suit would be maintainable. If a civil suit is maintainable, will there be a concurrent jurisdiction in both in the Civil Court and the Mamlatdar to decide the issue? Before the Civil Court an issue may arise whether on a plea in a defence that a person is a tenant, it would be referable to the Mamlatdar. Independently a person can also apply to the Mamlatdar if the question arises. At whose instance will the issue arise before the Mamlatdar? In our respectful submission, it would only arise if the parties who go before the Mamlatdar proceed on the footing that the person is a tenant or a deemed tenant. Firstly the Mamlatdar is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction. Secondly, Tenancy Act itself contemplates that a negative declaration can be given by the Mamlatdar in an application under section 4. This would contemplate that the legislature expressly conferred power on the Mamlatdar to grant a negative declaration in limited cases. If section 7 of the Tenancy Act was all embracing and the Mamlatdar could decide the issue of both positive and negative declarations, there would be no need to provide for negative declaration under section 4. No part of the Act or, for that matter language of a statute, can be said to be otiose. That is a cardinal principle of interpretation. It is the duty of the Court to give effect to the intendment of the legislature. Once the legislature has expressly provided for grant of negative declaration in limited cases, it would contemplate ouster of jurisdiction in matters other than section 4. This would also be a harmonious construction as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would not be ousted and there would be no conflicting judgments. The language of the Tenancy Act therefore, contemplates that no negative declaration can be granted by the Mamlatdar. Of course when the issue arises before the Mamlatdar he can always decide whether the person who claims the right has so proved or not. This is the jurisdiction inherent in deciding an issue. That does not mean that because the Mamlatdar could decide the issue either on a reference by a Civil Court or on application before him, he can assum jurisdiction not vested in him.