Fraud cannot be examined in collateral tenancy proceedings, but a competent order is not void merely because fraud is alleged.

A tenancy authority cannot decide an allegation that an earlier tenancy order was obtained by fraud in collateral proceedings under Section 32R; that question must be pursued in appropriate proceedings, including a civil suit. By contrast, an order passed by a competent tenancy authority on a matter within its statutory jurisdiction is not a nullity merely because fraud is alleged. The earlier order was therefore not void for want of inherent jurisdiction, although the fraud question remained open for proper proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in proceedings under Section 32R of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the tenancy authorities could enquire into the allegation that the earlier order under Section 32O was obtained by fraud; (ii) Whether the order dated 19 December 1975 was a nullity for want of inherent jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether, in proceedings under Section 32R of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the tenancy authorities could enquire into the allegation that the earlier order under Section 32O was obtained by fraud.

Analysis: The application filed by the landlord was essentially one under Section 32R, while the references to Sections 31 and 33B were misconceived. Fraud is a question of fact and, in the absence of any provision empowering the tenancy authorities to adjudicate upon fraud in such collateral proceedings, the proper forum for that issue is an appropriate proceeding, including a civil suit. The tenancy authorities, therefore, could not decide whether the earlier order under Section 32O had been obtained by fraud.

Conclusion: The fraud issue was not open to adjudication in the proceedings under Section 32R and was kept open for appropriate proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the order dated 19 December 1975 was a nullity for want of inherent jurisdiction.

Analysis: An order is a nullity only where the authority lacked inherent jurisdiction. The subject matter of the earlier order fell within the duties and functions of the Mamlatdar under Section 70(b), which includes deciding whether a person is or was a tenant. The authority, therefore, had jurisdiction to decide the controversy under Section 32O. Although the allegation of fraud was left open, the order could not be treated as void for lack of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The order dated 19 December 1975 did not suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction and was not a nullity on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded in part. The remand direction passed by the revisional authority was set aside, the rejection of the landlord's possession application was left undisturbed, and the fraud question was expressly kept open for proper proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A tenancy authority cannot decide an allegation of fraud in collateral proceedings under Section 32R, but an order passed by a competent tenancy authority on a matter within its statutory jurisdiction is not a nullity merely because fraud is alleged; such an order must be challenged in appropriate proceedings.

---