ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3997 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 3997 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 3997 OF 2008 Pratap Waman Mantri ...Petitioner. Vs. Jayant Shivram Salgaonkar & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.Madhav Jamdar for the Petitioner. Mr.Rajesh S.Patil for Respondent No.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 14th November, 2008. : 14th November, 2008. : 14th November, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- The Petitioner-Plaintiff has challenged the common order dated 12/03/2008 whereby after considering the pleadings and documents available on record, rightly held and framed preliminary issue with regard to the Civil Court jurisdiction to try entertain and decide the present suit and framed additional issue whether the plaintiff is tenant of the suit under the provisions of The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (for short, "BT & AL Act"). 2. Both these issues are interlocutory and inter connected. There are sufficient pleadings with regard to this facet denied by other side and therefore, in ( 2 ) the present facts and circumstances of the case, the issue as raised cannot be said to be a foreign. On the contrary, it is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. There is reference clearly made by the Defendants that the tenancy of the Plaintiff was in respect of the land Survey No.259 and some adjacent matter as per the map and the remaining lands were leased to the Plaintiff. The lands bearing 258- A, B,C are agricultural lands and there cannot be monthly tenancy in the Agricultural lands. There is a clear dispute about tenancy with respect to the properties. Therefore, the right of respective tenant if any, need to be adjudicated which definitely goes to the root of the matter of such nature. There are two suits pending between the parties. 3. The authorities so cited by the Petitioner in given facts and circumstances of the case, in no way are sufficient to interfere with the interlocutory orders as passed by the Court. 4. The Petition is, therefore, accordingly dismissed. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)