A. N. SURTI, J. ( 1 ) THE defendant was aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge Baroda in Civil Appeal No. 275 of 1971 whereby the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge J. D. Sankheda in Regular Civil Suit No. 146 of 1970. It may be mentioned at this stage that the learned trial Judge dismissed the plaintiffs suit for possession of the suit house whereas the lower appellate court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs throughout. ( 2 ) IT is under these circumstances that the present appeal is filed in this court. ( 3 ) AT the time of hearing of this second appeal Mr. Shah the learned advocate has raised a point of considerable importance touching the jurisdiction of the Civil Court where the suit has been filed by the landlord in the Civil Court to evict an artisan tenant. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the contention raised by Mr. Shah a few relevant facts may be stated. ( 5 ) THE suit house which is a dwelling house is situated in village Vasna Taluka Sankheda district Baroda. It is an admitted position that the Rent Act is not applicable to village Vasna. It is also an admitted position that the plaintiff has leased out the suit house to the defendant as his tenant. ( 6 ) THE plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit to recover possession of the suit house on the ground that he required the same for his personal use and had legally terminated the tenancy of the defendant. Having thus terminated the tenancy the plaintiff had filed the aforesaid suit to obtain an eviction decree against the defendant in respect of the suit house. ( 7 ) IN the aforesaid suit the defendant filed his Written Statement Ex. 8. For the disposal of the present appeal suffice it to state that in substance the defence of the defendant was that he was maintaining himself having manufactured agricultural implements. He also stated that having regard to sec. 18 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 4the Tenancy Act) the plaintiff had no right to terminate the lease granted by the plaintiff in his favour. He also stated that having regard to sec. 18 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 4the Tenancy Act) the plaintiff had no right to terminate the lease granted by the plaintiff in his favour. ( 8 ) THE learned trial Judge on the pleadings of the parties raised various issues at Ex. 40 and the same are set out in para 3 of the judgment of the trial Court. ( 9 ) THE learned trial Judge took the view that the plaintiff did not prove the terms of tenancy. He also took the view that the suit notice is not legal and valid. He also took the view that he had no jurisdiction to hear the suit. The learned trial Judge did take into consideration the provisions of secs. 16 17 17 and 17b of the Tenancy Act and came to the conclusion that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit in question. As a result of his aforesaid findings the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit with costs. ( 10 ) THE plaintiff was aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and preferred Civil Appeal No. 275 of 1971 in the Court of the learned District Judge Baroda. The learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge Baroda who heard the appeal. allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and decreed the suit with costs all throughout. ( 11 ) MR. Shah the learned advocate who appeared for the defendant submitted that the defendant at all relevant time was doing the work of an artisan in village Vasna. In order to justify his submission Mr. Shah invited my attention to the contents of para 6 of the written statement Ex. 8 which in terms provides that the defendant was maintaining himself having manufactured agricultural implements. He also invited my attention to the specific contention raised by the defendant in the written statement that having regard to sec. 18 of the Bombay Tenancy Act it was not open for the plaintiff to terminate his tenancy. ( 12 ) MR. Shah also invited my attention to sec. 2 (8) of the Tenancy Act which defines the word Land in the following terms. 18 of the Bombay Tenancy Act it was not open for the plaintiff to terminate his tenancy. ( 12 ) MR. Shah also invited my attention to sec. 2 (8) of the Tenancy Act which defines the word Land in the following terms. 2 land means (a) land which is used for agricultural purposes or which is so used but is left fallow and includes the sites of farm buildings apartment to such land; and (b) for the purpose of secs. 11 16 17 17 17 18 19 20 26 28 29 29 30 41 63 64 64 84 84 and 84c. (i) the sites of dwelling houses occupied by agriculturists agricultural labourers or artisans and land apartment to such dwelling houses; (ii) the sites of structures used by agriculturists for allied pursuits; mr. Shah submitted that for the purposes of sections 11 16 17 17 17 18 19 20 26 28 29 29 30 41 63 64 64 84 84 and 84c the legislature has assigned a special meaning to the word land and the same means the sites of dwelling houses occupied by agriculturists agricultural labourers or artisans and the land appurtenant to such dwelling houses. ( 13 ) HAVING thus invited my attention to the statutory definition of the word land as provided in sec. 2 (8) of the Tenancy Act; Mr. Shah invited my attention to the statutory meaning of the word tenant as provided in sec. 2 (18) which is in the following words: (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; and (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. ( 14 ) HAVING regard to the definitions of the words land and tenant Mr. ( 14 ) HAVING regard to the definitions of the words land and tenant Mr. Shah submitted that in the instant case the defendant who is an artisan is the tenant of the dwelling house and as such is entitled to the statutory protection conferred on him under sec. 18 of the Tenancy Act which is in the following terms. 18 The Provisions of secs. 16 17 17 and 17b shall apply (a) to the dwelling houses and sites thereof occupied by agricultural between and artisans in any village; and (b) to the lands held on lease in any village by persons carrying on an allied pursuit for the purpose of such pursuit. Mr. Shah also invited my attentions to the provisions of secs. 16 17 17 and 17b of the Tenancy Act and submitted that if the defendant artisantenant was occupying the dwelling house the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide or deal with the matter which should have been dealt with by the Mamlatdar having regard to sec. 70 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. 1 also asked Mr. Shah to point out to me from the evidence as to how the defendant has established that he was an artisan occupying the dwelling house particularly when the defendant did not give any evidence in the Civil Court. To the question put by the Court Mr. Shah invited my attention to the evidence of the plaintiff who in terms deposed that the defendant was manufacturing the agricultural implements and was occupying the suit house Mr. Shah submitted that if the plaintiff had accepted the defendants case in regard to his plea that he was an artisan then there was no necessity for the defendant to enter the box and to give further evidence. ( 15 ) THERE is lot of substance and force in the submission made by Mr. Shah. In the instant case prima facts I am satisfied that the defendant was an artisan. A specific plea in that behalf was taken in the written statement. in this view of the matter Mr. Shah is right when he urged before me that the Civil Court will have no jurisdiction to decide as to whether the defendant as an artisan tenant in respect of the dwelling house. That issue must necessarily be decided by the Mamlatdar. ( 16 ) BUT Mr. in this view of the matter Mr. Shah is right when he urged before me that the Civil Court will have no jurisdiction to decide as to whether the defendant as an artisan tenant in respect of the dwelling house. That issue must necessarily be decided by the Mamlatdar. ( 16 ) BUT Mr. Patel the learned advocate appearing for the respondent plaintiff very vehemently urged that in the instant case the defendant did not give any evidence in the court that he was an artisantenant in respect of the dwelling house. With respect it is not possible for me to agree or accept Mr. Patels submission for the simple reason that in the instant case the plaintiff did assist the cause of justice by deposing in the Civil Court that the defendant was manufacturing agricultural implements and that being so it is not possible for me to agree or accept the submission of Mr. Patel. ( 17 ) AS a result of the aforesaid discussion I direct the learned Civil Judge to raise the following issue and to send the same to the Mamlatdar for his decision in accordance with law. Whether the defendant proves that he is an artisan tenant in respect of the dwelling house occupied by him ? The learned Civil Judge is directed to refer the aforesaid issue to the Mamlatdar and should wait till he gets the final decision from all revenue forums and after he gets the final decision from the revenue forums he should decide the suit in accordance with law. ( 18 ) AS a result of the aforesaid discussion the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court are set aside and the learned trial Judge is directed to deal with the matter in light of the directions given by me in course of this judgmint. Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. .