S. H. SHETH, J. ( 1 ) MR. Naiks second contention raises an interesting question. The Courts below have found that in respect of the lands specified in sub- paragraph (b) of paragraph 8 of the plaint the joint family of Malubha ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendants has been the tenant. If I was required to examine the finding recorded by the Courts below on evidence I would have confirmed it. Secondly since that finding is a finding of fact I could not have interfered with it in Second Appeal. However the question which has been raised is this that when some members of a joint Hindu family claim to be executive tenants in respect of certain agricultural lands governed by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 as against the claim made by other member on behalf of the joint Hindu family that the tenancy rights in respect of the lands belong to the joint family the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the question. The bar of jurisdiction has been enacted by sec. 85 of the Tenancy Act. Sub-sec. (1) thereof which is material provides as follows:85 (1) No. Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar or Tribunal a Manager the Collector the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal or the State Government in appeal or revision or the State Government in exercise of their powers of control. THEREFORE so far as Civil Court is concerned the bar of jurisdiction is attracted if any question arises and if it is required by the Tenancy Act or under it to be settled decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar. What I am therefore required to answer is whether the question stated above is one which is required to be settled decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar. Sec. 70 lays down the duties and functions which the Mamlatdar has to perform for the purposes of the Tenancy Act. Clause (b) thereof is relevant for the present purpose. It casts upon the Mamlatdar the duty of deciding whether a person is or was a tenant or a protected tenant or a permanent tenant. The Mamlatdar is therefore required to decide the matters relating to the tenancy of a person. Sub-sec. (18) of sec. Clause (b) thereof is relevant for the present purpose. It casts upon the Mamlatdar the duty of deciding whether a person is or was a tenant or a protected tenant or a permanent tenant. The Mamlatdar is therefore required to decide the matters relating to the tenancy of a person. Sub-sec. (18) of sec. 2 of the Tenancy Act defines the expression tenant in the following terms : (18) tenant means a person who holds land on lease and includes (a) a person who is deemed to be a tenant under sec. 4; (b) a person who is a protected tenant; and (c) a person who is a permanent tenant; (d) a person who after the surrender of his tenancy in respect of any land at any time after the appointed day but before the specified date has continued or is deemed to have continued to remain in actual possession with or without the consent of the landlord of such land till the specified date; and the word landlord shall be construed accordingly. THERE are two expressions in sub-sec. (18) of sec. 2 which tend to indicate that a controversy whether a particular person is the tenant or not is to be decided with reference to the person who is alleged to be the landlord. These two expressions are: (1) a person who holds land on lease; and (2) the word landlord shall be construed accordingly. THIS question came up for consideration of the High Court at Bombay in RAJARAM TOTARAM PATEL V. MAHIPAT MAHADU PATEL AND OTHERS A. I. R. 1967 BOMBAY 408. It was a case in which the question which arose was whether the defendant was the sole tenant of the field in dispute or whether the plaintiffs and the defendant were joint tenants of the field on the tillers day. It may be noted that the controversy in that case did not centre round the question whether the plaintiff was the tenant or the defendant was the tenant. It had assumed a character similar to one it has assumed in the present case. It may be noted that the controversy in that case did not centre round the question whether the plaintiff was the tenant or the defendant was the tenant. It had assumed a character similar to one it has assumed in the present case. In the present case also the controversy is whether the defendants are the sole tenants of the lands in question or whether the joint family of Malubha is the tenant in respect of the suit lands that is to say whether the plaintiffs and the defendants are the joint tenants of the lands in question. The principle laid down by the Full Bench of the High Court at Bombay in that case in my opinion therefore is directly applicable to the instant case. The High Court at Bombay after having construed sec. 70 and sec. 85 of the Tenancy Act and after having reviewed a number of decisions on the subject has laid down that the question whether a person is a tenant or not is not limited to the narrower issue whether a person is a tenant of a particular landlord. Irrespective of the question whether the issue is raised by the landlord or by a tenant or a cotenant or any other person according to them it will still be a question whether a person is a tenant. Therefore the question contemplated by sec. 70 (b) is not limited to an issue between the landlord and the tenant. Proceeding further they have observed that it is the function of the Mamlatdar to decide whether a person is a tenant and when the legislature has used that expression there is no reason for curtailing its amplitude by saying that the issue which the Mamlatdar has to decide is only an issue whether a person is a tenant of a particular landlord. Whenever the issue is raised in any suit whether a person is a tenant by whomsoever it is raised the issue will have to be decided by the Mamlatdar. Therefore where the issue is whether the defendant is the sole tenant of the land in question or whether the plaintiffs and the defendants are joint tenants it falls within the ambit of sec. 70 (b) and cannot be tried by the Civil Court. Therefore where the issue is whether the defendant is the sole tenant of the land in question or whether the plaintiffs and the defendants are joint tenants it falls within the ambit of sec. 70 (b) and cannot be tried by the Civil Court. In taking this view the High Court at Bombay has followed the decision of the Supreme Court in BHIMAJI V. DUNDAPPA A. I. R. 1966 S. C 166. It is therefore clear that the issue which has arisen between the plaintiffs and the defendants in this suit in respect of agricultural lands specified in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 8 of the plaint could not have been decided by the Civil Court. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide it. It must therefore be referred to the Mamlatdar. .