5. The only submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the original owner of the land, with the consent of the original protected tenant, sold the land to the vendor of the respondent and that the vendor of the respondent purchased the property in the year 1989 and from him the respondent purchased the property in the year 2004. As seen from the above, it is clear that the matter was pending before the revenue authorities till 31.12.2005. Of course, subsequently appeals were also filed, but, admittedly, the respondent herein claims to have purchased the property on 18.08.2004 vide registered sale deed document No.8761/ 2004. As on the date of purchase of the property by the respondent, admittedly, the matter was pending with revenue authorities and did not attain finality. When there is a dispute between the tenant and the landlord or tenant and a purchaser from the original landlord, as to whether a person is the protected tenant or not, whether he is entitled for 38-E (ownership) certificate or not, whether the landlord alienated the property with the consent of the tenant or not and whether there was any written consent of the tenant was obtained or not, all these questions cannot be dealt with by civil Courts, since civil Court jurisdiction is barred. The authorities under the said Act are only empowered to deal with such questions and since the civil Court jurisdiction is barred, the lower Court committed a manifest error in dismissing the application filed by
