Tenancy jurisdiction under the Bombay Tenancy Act requires civil courts to refer exclusive issues to the competent authority.

Where a civil suit raises tenancy questions under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the civil court must refer those issues to the competent tenancy authority under section 85A and cannot decide them itself, even if they arise incidentally. The statutory scheme of sections 70, 85 and 85A gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Mamlatdar or other competent authority on matters the Act requires to be settled by that forum. An earlier ex parte order dismissing a landlords' possession application did not amount to a final adjudication or create res judicata against the statutory reference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a civil suit involving questions of tenancy under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the civil court was bound to stay the suit and refer those issues to the competent authority under section 85A. (ii) Whether the earlier order of the tenancy authority dismissing the landlords' possession application operated as res judicata against such reference.

Issue (i): Whether, in a civil suit involving questions of tenancy under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the civil court was bound to stay the suit and refer those issues to the competent authority under section 85A.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of sections 70, 85 and 85A shows that questions which the Act requires to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar or other competent authority cannot be decided by the civil court. The Court applied the settled principle that once a suit properly cognisable by a civil court raises an issue exclusively assignable to the tenancy forum, the civil court must refer that issue and proceed only after the competent authority returns its decision. The nature of the issue as principal, incidental or subsidiary does not matter where the statute mandates exclusive determination by the tenancy authority.

Conclusion: The civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the tenancy issues itself and was bound to refer them to the competent authority under section 85A.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier order of the tenancy authority dismissing the landlords' possession application operated as res judicata against such reference.

Analysis: The earlier proceeding under section 29(2) read with section 25(2) was not shown to be a suit within the meaning of section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In any event, the order was passed ex parte and, on the material available, did not amount to a final adjudication of the tenancy questions now required to be referred. A decision on jurisdiction or on a summary possession application could not be expanded into a bar against statutory reference of tenancy issues in the civil suit.

Conclusion: The earlier tenancy authority order did not operate as res judicata and did not bar reference of the tenancy issues.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the High Court's direction to remit the suit for reference of tenancy issues to the competent authority was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a civil suit raises an issue that the tenancy statute requires to be determined by the competent authority, section 85A obliges the civil court to refer that issue and it cannot decide it as an incidental matter; an earlier ex parte or jurisdictional order in a possession proceeding does not create res judicata on that statutory tenancy question.

---