- (1.) Heard the learned Counsel on behalf of the parties.
(2.) This is defendants' second appeal arising from Special Civil Suit No.46/1994/Sr and was admitted by Order of this Court dated 16-12-2004 on substantial question of law which reads as follows: "Whether the lower appellate Court held in error in proceeding to decide issue nos.1 to 3 unless the issue regarding tenancy was decided by the appropriate forum under Section 56 of the Rent Control Act, 1968 while holding that the trial court/civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the said issue -
(3.) The above substantial question presumably has arisen in view of the observations of the F.A.C. (First Appellate Court) because of an observation of the learned F.A.C. in para 13 of the Judgment wherein it was observed that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal with the issue of tenancy in respect of the residential premises is barred in view of Section 56 of the Rent Control Act, 1968. Concededly and in my view rightly, whether a person is a tenant or not under the G.D.D. Rent (L.R.E.) Control Act, 1968 has got to be decided by the Civil Court and the said wrong statement of law by the learned F.A.C. ought not to have given rise to a substantial question of law.;