TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court affirms Competent Authority's jurisdiction over tenancy issues under Bombay Tenancy Act</h1> <h3>Pandurang Ramchandra Mandlik Versus Smt. Shantabai Ramchandra Ghatge</h3> Pandurang Ramchandra Mandlik Versus Smt. Shantabai Ramchandra Ghatge - 1989 AIR 2240, 1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 1, 1989 (2) Suppl. SCC 627, 1989 (3) JT 647, ... Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court vs. Competent Authority under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.2. Applicability of res judicata to the decision of the tenancy authority.Summary:Jurisdiction of Civil Court vs. Competent Authority:The appellants, owners of land, filed a suit for possession, mesne profits, and damages after terminating the lease. The respondents contested, claiming the civil court lacked jurisdiction as the land fell under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('the Act'). The trial court decreed in favor of the appellants, but the High Court remanded the case, directing the trial court to refer tenancy issues to the competent authority u/s 85A of the Act. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that issues related to tenancy must be decided by the Mamlatdar or competent authority as per s. 70(b) and s. 85A of the Act. The Court cited precedents establishing that civil courts must refer such issues to the competent authority and dispose of the suit based on the authority's findings.Applicability of Res Judicata:The appellants argued that the dismissal of their application by the tenancy authority should act as res judicata, barring the reference of issues to the Mamlatdar. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, clarifying that res judicata applies to matters directly and substantially in issue in a former suit decided by a competent court. The Mamlatdar's decision, made ex parte, did not constitute a final decision on the tenancy issue. The Court also noted that the Mamlatdar's jurisdiction was not conclusively determined in the previous application, and the trial court must refer the issues to the competent authority as mandated by the Act.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's direction to remand the case to the trial court for referring tenancy-related issues to the competent authority, and ruled out the applicability of res judicata in this context.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
