1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10508 OF 2009 Namdeo Kondaji Jadhav (Kumbhar). .. Petitioner Vs Kisan Tulshiram Awari, since deceased, through legal heirs :- Govin Kisan Awari & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri S.M. Gorwadkar for the Petitioner. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 6TH APRIL, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The challenge in this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the orders dated 19th September, 2009 and 30th September, 2009 passed by the Trial Court. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff No.1. The suit was filed by the Petitioner and 9th and 10th Respondents for possession of the suit property against the 1st to 8th Respondents. The suit is being contested by the Defendants. A contention was raised in a Written Statement that the predecessor of the Defendants by name Kisan was the agricultural tenant in respect of the suit land. An issue was framed by the Trial Court on 9th October, 2007 on the question as to whether the Civil Court had 2 jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1948 ). An additional issue 1B was framed on 18th September, 2009 on the basis of a plea of tenancy raised by the Defendants. By further impugned order dated 30th September, 2009, a reference was made to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal for deciding the said additional issue. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that there was no basis for the plea of tenancy and only on the basis of a bald averment made in the written statement, the issue could not have been framed. He urged that there was no occasion to make a reference under Section 85A of the said Act of 1948. He submitted that the order of reference was illegal. 3. I have considered the submissions. There is a reference in the Plaint itself to the proceedings under the said Act of 1948. An application was made by the Petitioner under Section 70(b) of the said Act of 1948 contending that the original Defendant was not the agricultural tenant. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal has decided the application in favour of the Petitioner by holding that the original Defendant was not the agricultural tenant. However, the said decision was reversed by the Sub- Divisional Officer in an Appeal. The Revision Application preferred by the Petitioner against the said order was dismissed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. In the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners, this Court did not 3 interfere with the order of the Appellate Authority. Going by the averments made in the plaint, the plea of tenancy of the Respondents has a foundation. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the order of reference made to the Tribunal in accordance with Section 85-A of the said Act of 1948. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. 4. While forwarding the reference to the Tribunal constituted under the said Act of 1948, the Trial Court will direct the Tribunal to decide the reference expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date on which the reference is received by the Tribunal. (A.S.OKA, J)