This unassailable legal position emerges from the relevant provisions of the Tenancy Act." After considering the precedents in Trimbak Sopana Girme vs Gangaram Mhatarba Yadav, 1953 Bom. 241; Dhondi Tukaram Mali, (supra); Bhimaji Shanker Kulkarni, (supra); Ishwerlal Thakorelal Almaula vs Motibhai Nagjibhai, [1966] 1 SCR 367=AIR 1966 SC 459; Pandurang Hari Jadhav vs Shankar Maruti Todkar, ; Kalicharan Bhajan lal Bhayya vs Rai Mahalaxmi, ; Neminath Appayya Hanammannaver vs Jambu Rao Satappa Kocheri, AIR ; Jarnbu Rao Satappa Kocheri vs Neminath Appayya Hanamrnannaver, ; 1968 SC 1358; Mussamiya Imam, (supra) and Noor Mohd; Khan Ghouse Khan Soudagar vs Fakirappa Bharmappa Machenahalli. ; 3 SCR 789, their Lordships observed at para 19: "Thus, both on principle and on authority there is no escape from the conclusion that where in a suit properly constituted and cognizable by the Civil Court upon a contest an issue arises which is required to be set tled, decided or dealt with by a competent authority under the Tenancy Act, the jurisdic tion of the Civil Court to settle, decide or deal with the same is not only ousted but the Civil Court is under a statutory obligation to refer the issue to the competent authority under the Tenancy Act to decide the same and upon the reference being answered back, to dispose of the suit in accordance with the decision of the competent authority under the Tenancy Act.