IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 447 OF 2008 MRS. TERESA MIRANDA E MORAIS AND 23 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus MR. SHAMSHER JAKRIYA SHAIKH AND 16 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Anthony D' Silva, Advocate for the Petitioners. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 8th August, 2008 P.C.:- Heard Mr. Anthony D'Silva, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners. The Petitioners are Defendant Nos. 16 to 39 in R.C.S. No.88/2006/F who had raised rather a vague plea in the written statement that the Court had no jurisdiction and which plea has been decided by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, by the impugned Order dated 25-3-2008, and, to challenge the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. The said plea of want of jurisdiction appears to have been argued before the learned trial Court with reference to Section 56 of the Goa, Daman and Diu(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 which provides that no Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, determine or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, determined or dealt with by the Controller, the Rent Tribunal, the Appellate Board, the Administrative Tribunal, or the Administrator, and no order passed by any such authorities under this Act shall be called in question in any court. The said plea appears to have been taken because the Plaintiffs had filed the suit claiming that they were the tenants in respect of the suit structure belonging to Defendant No.1 for the last about 17 years. The learned trial Court by the impugned Order has held that the question whether the Plaintiffs are the tenants or not has got to be decided on merits after the parties led their evidence and has further held that whether the plaintiffs have filed a false plea in connivance with Defendant Nos.1 to 15 will also be decided on merits of the case. In my view, the question of jurisdiction though vaguely raised and subsequently argued has been rightly decided by the learned trial Court. Whether a person is a tenant or not is within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and not within the purview of the authorities constituted under the said Act. It appears that Defendant Nos.16 to 27 had filed R.C.A. No. 16368/60 for the eviction of Defendant Nos.1 to 15 and in the Execution Proceedings filed therefrom bearing No.1/2002/A Defendant Nos.16 to 27 were seeking the assistance of the Court to demolish the suit structure regarding which the Plaintiffs have taken the said plea that they are the tenants of the said Defendant No.1. One does not know how many tenants the said suit structure had but the fact remains that the Plaintiffs along with several others had filed an application in the said Execution Proceedings in terms of Order 21, Rule 97 which came to be decided by Order dated 31-8-2004 and which has attained finality according to the learned Counsel of the Petitioners. Relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sushila Sadanand Borkar and others v. Smt. Maria Exaltacao Vaz and another(2002(2) G.L.T. 426) learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners submits that in view of the said very claim of the Plaintiffs having been decided in the said Execution Proceedings, no separate suit was maintainable. However, this submission which is made for the first time cannot be accepted as no such plea was taken before the learned trial Court. It does not at all appear from the impugned Order that any effort was made on the part of the Petitioners/Defendants to raise such plea for rejection of the plaint. In case the said remedy is available to them, they are always free to pursue the same by filing a proper application. The Petitioners are always free to file such an application in accordance with law. In my view, this is not a fit case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction. There is no merit in the Petition which is hereby dismissed in limine. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.