Civil court jurisdiction over tenancy status remains intact where the statute limits the Collector to specified tenant disputes.

Section 7(1) of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act, 1948 confines the Collector's jurisdiction to the specific tenant-landlord disputes listed in clauses (a) to (e) and does not extend to deciding whether the landlord-tenant relationship exists at all. Because exclusion of civil court jurisdiction must be express or necessarily implied, the foundational question of tenancy status remains for the civil court. The limited summary inquiry under section 7(2), the appeal under section 11, and the wider scheme of the Act support that construction, as do disputes involving title or the existence of tenancy under the parent enactment. The civil court therefore retains jurisdiction over whether the respondents were tenants and entitled to protection.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 7(1) of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act, 1948 excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide a dispute as to whether the respondents were tenants of the appellant and entitled to the Act's protection.

Analysis: Section 7(1) confers jurisdiction on the Collector only in respect of the specific disputes enumerated in clauses (a) to (e). On its plain language, it postulates an existing relationship of landlord and tenant and does not itself extend to a controversy about whether that relationship exists at all. The exclusion of civil court jurisdiction cannot be readily inferred and must be express or necessarily implied. The structure of section 7, including the limited and summary nature of the inquiry under section 7(2) and the appeal provision in section 11, supports the view that the legislature intended the Collector to decide only the specified tenant-landlord disputes, not the foundational question of tenancy status. The broader scheme of the Act and the parent tenancy enactment also indicates that disputes involving title or the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant remain for the civil court.

Conclusion: Section 7(1) does not take away the civil court's jurisdiction to determine whether the respondents were tenants of the appellant; the issue was wrongly held to be within the Collector's exclusive jurisdiction.

---