FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders WRIT PETITION NO. 8719 OF 2011 HIRA GURDAL CHAVAN AND ORS VERSUS SHARAD KESHARLAL KASAT ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Naik Santosh S. ... CORAM : S V GANGAPURWALA, J. Dated: November 21, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. Respondent has filed suit for simplicitor injunction. Present petitioner/original defendant had filed its written statement. The present petitioner filed an application under section 9-A of Civil Procedure Code Exh.26 to frame preliminary issue in respect of jurisdiction. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is the protected tenant over the said land. This aspect is denied by the plaintiff and as such, as per section 9-A of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, said issue is exclusively required to be decided by the revenue authority i.e. Tahsildar. Said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, present petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is only the tenancy court under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, who can decide the issue about tenancy. Civil Court has no jurisdiction, when the plaintiff FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders has denied the fact of protected tenancy, then in such circumstances, said issue is required to be referred to the Tenancy Court, particularly in view of Section 19 (1) of Hyderabad Tenancy and AGricultural Lands Act, 1950. Learned counsel further submits that all these aspects have not been considered by the learned trial Court. 3. Learned trial court, while rejecting the application has considered that, the petitioner’s predecessor is declared as protected tenant. Certificate to that effect is also on record. When the factum that present petitioner’s predecessors was declared as protected tenant is already on record, no question arises of again referring the issue of tenancy to the tenancy Court. Even trial court in the impugned order has observed about this Fact. The petitioners further have relied on the fact that, they are not parties to the compromise deed executed by Sarichand Gardal and same is not binding on them. The court has observed that if the present petitioner’s want to assail said compromise, they can do the same before the appropriate authority. 4. The trial court has properly considered the issue. Writ Petition is sans merits hence stands dismissed however, no order as to costs. ( S V GANGAPURWALA, J. ) aaa/- ...