Retrospective saving of tenancy rights and exclusive revenue jurisdiction govern tenancy disputes under the Bombay Tenancy Act.

An express saving proviso in section 43C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act retrospectively preserved tenancy rights acquired under the principal Act, notwithstanding earlier exclusionary amendments affecting municipal-borough lands. The proviso was treated as a substantive restoration clause, and the general saving provisions did not override its express language. The Court also reaffirmed that tenancy status and related issues fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar or Revenue Court under sections 70 and 85. After the 1956 amendment, the Civil Court had to stay the suit and refer such issues for determination, then proceed only in conformity with the revenue findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proviso to section 43C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 retrospectively preserved the tenant's rights notwithstanding the earlier exclusion of municipal-borough lands from the Act and the intervening amendments; (ii) whether, after the 1956 amendment, the Civil Court could itself decide issues which the Act required to be determined by the Mamlatdar or Revenue Court.

Issue (i): Whether the proviso to section 43C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 retrospectively preserved the tenant's rights notwithstanding the earlier exclusion of municipal-borough lands from the Act and the intervening amendments.

Analysis: The proviso was treated as a substantive saving provision, not as a mere qualification of the main clause. It preserved rights acquired as tenants under the principal Act on or after 28 December 1948, and the legislative intention was to restore those rights retrospectively as against the effect of the 1952 amendment. The saving clause in section 89(2)(b) and section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 did not control the express language of the proviso.

Conclusion: The tenant's rights under the Act were retrospectively restored and remained available in the pending dispute.

Issue (ii): Whether, after the 1956 amendment, the Civil Court could itself decide issues which the Act required to be determined by the Mamlatdar or Revenue Court.

Analysis: Sections 70 and 85 conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Mamlatdar or Revenue Court to decide whether a person was a tenant or protected tenant and related tenancy issues. Section 85A, inserted by the 1956 amendment, made the legislative intention explicit by requiring the Civil Court to stay the suit and refer such issues for determination. The Civil Court could continue the suit only after receiving the Revenue Court's findings, and could not itself adjudicate those issues.

Conclusion: The Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the tenancy issues itself and had to refer them to the Mamlatdar or Revenue Court.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the suit could not stand, but the matter had to go back for further proceedings with the tenancy questions determined by the competent revenue authority.

Ratio Decidendi: An express saving proviso can retrospectively restore tenancy rights despite earlier exclusionary amendments, and where a special tenancy statute assigns exclusive determination of tenancy status to a revenue authority, the Civil Court must refer those issues and decide the suit only in conformity with that determination.

---