JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The Defendant is the Appellant against the reversing decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Aska. The Plaintiff sued for title, possession and mesne profits which were: in deposit in the criminal Court in a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The Plaintiff claimed acquisition of title under Ext. 1, a sale deed dated 1-5-1965 and contended that the Defendant was entrusted to look after the cultivation. The proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure terminated on 30-12.1965 and the suit was instituted on 12.2-196-6. 3. The Defendant admitted the title of the Plaintiff but contended that he was the tenant and was not evitable. 4. The trial Court under Issue No. 2 found the title of the Plaintiff and under Issue No. 3 relating to jurisdiction of the Civil Court found that the suit was not maintainable in regard to the relief of possession. He accordingly, while decreeing the title of the Plaintiff, dismissed the suit so far as relief of recovery of possession was concerned. 5. The learned appellate Judge found that the suit was maintainable and that the Defendant was not abhagchasi. He accordingly directed recovery of possession. 6. This appeal is directed against this reversing decree. 7. Three points are raised by Mr. Murty, learned Counsel for the Appellant. Firstly he contends that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This is with reference to Sections 16 and 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. Secondly he contends that under the previsions of Section 74(2)(b) and (d) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act the privilege available to a tenant under the Orissa Tenants Relief Act is the same and in regard to such privilege, a proceeding can be commenced notwithstanding the repeal of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act. Thus in regard to the claim of relief by a tenant, the provisions of Section 11-A(1) and (2) of the O.T.R. Act must be deemed to be still on the statute book. That would bar the jurisdiction of the Civil court. Thus in regard to the claim of relief by a tenant, the provisions of Section 11-A(1) and (2) of the O.T.R. Act must be deemed to be still on the statute book. That would bar the jurisdiction of the Civil court. Thirdly he contends that as there was no finding by the trial Court on the question of tenancy, the learned appellate Judge, once he found that the trial Court had gone wrong on the question of jurisdiction, should have remanded the matter for a finding on that question and should not have proceeded to dispose of the matter by determining the point himself. 8. Section 16 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act provides: If any dispute arises as to the identity of the tenants in cultivation of any land such dispute shall, after such enquiry as may be prescribed, be decided by the Revenue Officer on his own motion or on the application of the landlord or any person claiming to be in such cultivation and the Revenue Officer may pass such order as he may deem necessary. Section 67 of that Act provides: (Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act) no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding so far as it relates to any matter which any officer or other competent authority is empowered by or under this Act to decide. There is no dispute at the bar that if Section 16 of the Act applies to The present suit, by operation of Section 67 the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be ousted. Mr. Rath for the Respondent, however, contends that Section 16 only provides for determination of disputes regarding identity of tenants and not for determination of relationship of landlord and Tenant. He refers to the corresponding provisions of the Orissa tenants Relief Act. There, Section 9 read with Section 11-A (Vide amendment of that Act) provided for determination of disputes relating to landlord and tenant while Section 11 provided for determination of disputes as to the identity of tenants. I ?identity of tenants?, contends Mr. Rath, there can be no room for introducing a dispute in relation to relationship of landlord and tenant. The dispute should be between one person and another in regard to tenancy of an agricultural holding and not with reference to a dispute between a tenant on one side and the landlord on the other. I ?identity of tenants?, contends Mr. Rath, there can be no room for introducing a dispute in relation to relationship of landlord and tenant. The dispute should be between one person and another in regard to tenancy of an agricultural holding and not with reference to a dispute between a tenant on one side and the landlord on the other. I think, there is substantial force in the contention of Mr. Rath. Section 16 cannot be the provision to deal with the relationship of landlord and tenant. The first plea raised by Mr. Murty would, therefore, fail. 9. Section 11-A(1) of the O.T.R. Act provided that the Collector is to decide dispute regarding the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant. But that was in regard to proceedings taken under the Act. Section 11-A(1) of the O.T.R. Act never ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a party before it was a tenant in regard to the disputed property. Section 11-A(2) barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of matters where the dispute of relationship of landlord and tenant was already pending before a forum under the O.T.R. Act. Section 74(2)(a) and (b) of the O.L.R. Act are saving provisions and they intend, to save certain provisions of The Orissa Tenants Relief Act notwithstanding the repeal thereof under Sub-section (1) of Section 74 of The O.L.R. Act. Even if both of these provisions are set in the manner indicated by Mr. Murty, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would not get automatically ousted thereby. There is no force, therefore in the second contention of Mr. Murty. 10. The next contention is that the appellate Court should have called upon the trial Court to record a finding in regard to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant. It was open to the lower appellate Court to have done so and if he had done that, possibly no objection could be taken. Bot when the learned trial judge had proceeded to dispose of that aspect of the matter on the basis of want of jurisdiction and had not given a finding on the question, it was competent to the appellate Court to decide the same finally u/s 107(1)(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure. That has been done. Bot when the learned trial judge had proceeded to dispose of that aspect of the matter on the basis of want of jurisdiction and had not given a finding on the question, it was competent to the appellate Court to decide the same finally u/s 107(1)(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure. That has been done. On scrutiny of the appellate judgment I find that he has taken the entire evidence into consideration and has determined the matter. I do not think, any prejudice has been caused to the Defendant. I, therefore, think that it would not be proper to remand the matter to the trial Court for a finding on that question again. There is so merit in this contention as well. 11. The appeal fails and is dismissed. There would be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed