JUDGMENT 1. This revision under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12-3-2010 passed below Ex.13 in Regular Civil Suit No.61 of 2009 by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Mahemdavad, whereby the application for rejection of the plaint filed by the present petitioner-original defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure was rejected. 2. Short facts are that a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.61 of 2009 was filed by the present opponent-original plaintiff for possession of the suit land given on sant basis to the grandfather of the present petitioner-original defendant for cultivation before 30-35 years. It was averred in the plaint that initially, suit land was given on sant basis to the grandfather of the defendant. On the death of grandfather, father of the defendant took over the same and upon the death of father, possession of the suit land came to the defendant. It was further averred that father of the plaintiff never mortgaged the suit land to grandfather of the defendant and no legal document of mortgage came to be executed. Since the defendant was in illegal possession of the suit land and was trying to mortgage or give it for cultivation on rent to third party, the aforesaid suit was filed along with an application at Ex.5. 3. The defendant filed an application at Ex.13 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for rejection of the plaint contending inter alia that it was averred in the plaint that Survey No.599/2 admeasuring 1 Acre and 29 Gunthas situated at Mahemdavad was given to grandfather of the defendant for cultivation and now the plaintiff is in possession of the same received from his ancestors. Hence, according to him, as per Sec.85-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the admission of the plaintiff that defendant is a tenant. Hence, as per Sec.9 read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, suit of the plaintiff was barred and hence, it was prayed that the plaint be rejected. The plaintiff also filed reply denying the contents of the application and reiterating the averments made in the plaint. 4. Hence, as per Sec.9 read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, suit of the plaintiff was barred and hence, it was prayed that the plaint be rejected. The plaintiff also filed reply denying the contents of the application and reiterating the averments made in the plaint. 4. Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the trial court rejected the application Ex.13 filed by the defendant. Hence, the present revision by the original defendant. 5. Heard learned counsel, Mr.V.C.Desai, for the petitioner-original defendant and for the respondent-original plaintiff, Mr.H.M.Parikh. 6. Learned counsel, Mr.Desai, submitted that as per the averments made in the plaint, suit land has been given by the plaintiff to the grandfather of the defendant on santh basis prior to 30 to 35 years for cultivation. On the same basis, possession of the suit land came to the father of the defendant upon the death of grandfather and then to the present petitioner-defendant upon the death of his father. He also submitted that according to the plaintiff, the suit land has not been mortgaged to the defendant. Drawing attention of this Court to the words land , rent and tenant as mentioned in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and also towards the averments made in the plaint, he submitted that the defendant has been cultivating the suit land of the plaintiff on lease on payment of santh lawfully and the defendant was not a mortgagee in possession and hence, the defendant is a tenant of the suit land. He further submitted that in view of non-payment of santh for the last two years, it has been averred by the plaintiff that the defendant was a trespasser. According to him, the plaintiff has to establish prima facie as to how the defendant was a trespasser and as to how was he entitled to seek relief of possession in view of Sec.85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. He further submitted that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question which is required to be decided by the Mamlatdar and since the plaintiff's suit was barred by law as per Sec.85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, plaint be rejected and Ex.13 be granted by quashing and setting aside the impugned order. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the present respondent-original plaintiff, Mr.H.M.Parikh, submitted that it was held by the Mamlatdar in inquiry that grandfather of the defendant was not tenant of the suit land. According to him, the averments that suit land was given prior to 30-35 years to defendant's grandfather for cultivation was to be treated as approximate period. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is legal and proper and, hence, urged that the revision be dismissed. 8. The aspects to be considered by this Court while dealing with an order passed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure are the averments made in the plaint and the documents relied on and not the probable defense. Further, whether on going through the averments made in the plaint, the suit is barred by any law or not. 9. On going through the averments made in the plaint, it is clear that the suit land, which is an agricultural land, has been given to grandfather of the defendant prior to 30-35 years on santh basis and present petitioner was in possession of the same on santh basis on the death of his grandfather and father. It is also clear that the relation between the plaintiff and defendant is that of landlord and tenant. However, the learned counsel for the original plaintiff is unable to substantiate his submission that since the defendant has not been paying the sant for the last two years, he was a trespasser. In other words, he could not establish as to how a tenant becomes a trespasser, if he does not pay the sant. In this connection, Sec.85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 is relevant to be noted. Sec.85 reads as under: Section 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. (2) No order of the Mamlatdar, the Tribunal, the Collector or the (Gujarat Revenue Tribunal) or the (State) Government made under this Act shall be questioned in any civil or criminal court. (2) No order of the Mamlatdar, the Tribunal, the Collector or the (Gujarat Revenue Tribunal) or the (State) Government made under this Act shall be questioned in any civil or criminal court. Explanation For the purpose of this section, a civil court shall include Mamlatdar's Court constituted under the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906. 10. It is clear from the averments made in the plaint itself that the defendant has been cultivating the suit land lawfully on santh basis and has been in possession thereof. He is not a mortgagee either. Therefore, there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant. Hence, for non-payment of santh for the last two years, the plaintiff cannot be treated as trespasser. Regarding Ex.3/5 annexed at Annexure-D is concerned, the plea of the plaintiff that by order dated 18-6-1962 in Entry in V.F.No.6, Mamlatdar held that grandfather of the defendant was not a tenant, cannot be accepted in view of specific averments in the plaint itself. It may be noted in this regard that in para 3 of the suit which was filed on 10-7-2009, it was specifically averred that suit land was given prior to 30-35 years to the grandfather of the defendant for cultivation on santh basis i.e. during the period ranging from 1974 to 1979. If that be so, then possession of the suit land has been given to the defendant subsequent to the date of passing of the order dated 18-6-1962 at Annexure-D. Therefore, even as per the plaint itself, lease in favour of the grandfather of the defendant has been created qua the suit land during the period from 1974 to 1979 which is after the date of order at Annexure-D. In view of the above, even as per the plaintiff himself, the order at Annexure-D would not be of no help to the plaintiff to decide the application at Ex.13. In view of the above, the finding of the trial court that issue in the suit was of mortgage and not of tenancy and hence, it has jurisdiction to try the suit would not be sustainable in law. In view of the above, the finding of the trial court that issue in the suit was of mortgage and not of tenancy and hence, it has jurisdiction to try the suit would not be sustainable in law. This Court, however, is of the opinion that as the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant is that of landlord and tenant, the civil court does not have jurisdiction to grant the relief of possession and other consequential reliefs prayed for in para 9 of the plaint as it would be barred by Sec.85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Since the case falls within the scope of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, suit of the plaintiff is required to be dismissed. 11. In view of the above, the present revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 12-3-2010 passed below Ex.13 in Regular Civil Suit No.61 of 2009 by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Mahemdavad, is quashed and set aside and the Ex.13 is hereby granted. Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.