ITIKALA VENKATARAMAYYA Vs. KOMMU GURUVIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three C.M. As. Nos. 13/3, 14/3 and 15/3 of 1956 arise out of three suits filed by the appellant herein for possession and recovery of rent. There suits were decreed by the trial Court. On appeal, the appellate Court allowed the appeal and directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff to be presented before the proper forum. Hence these three appeals on behalf of the plaintiff.

(2.) In these appeals the only point that falls for determination is whether the civil Court has jurisdiction or not to entertain the suits. It is not denied that for purposes of jurisdiction the Court has to look into the allegations in the plaint. The plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that he is the owner and had leased out the lands to the tenants (respondents in these appeals). The respondents have not paid the rent and have denied his title. The plea of the defendants was that they did not obtain the lands on lease from the plaintiff but had taken the lands from some other person. They inter alia denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the lands. If the plaint allegation is to be looked, as the defendants have denied the title, it is the civil Court which has the jurisdiction to try the suits. The contention of the other side is, as the plaintiff himself has stated that the defendants are his tenants that is sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the civil Court. We cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (XXI of 1950) purports to regulate the relationship between the landlord and the tenant of the agricultural lands and the alienations of such land. The definition of a tenant given in the Act is not only the asami shikmi who holds land on lease but also the person who lawfully cultivates any land belonging to another person. If the question arises whether a tenant is a protected tenant in respect of any land, that question has to be decided by the Tahsildar from whose decision a first appeal to the Collector and a second appeal to the Board of Revenue lies. The declaration given by the Tahsildar or by the Appellate Tribunal that a particular tenant is a protected tenant is conclusive Under section 99 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, the civil Court's jurisdiction is excluded in respect of any question which is under the Act required to be settled by the Tahsildar, Collector or the Board of Revenue. It is clear therefore that if the question is whether a particular tenant is a protected tenant or not, that question has to be decided by the Tahsildar, and the civil Court would have no jurisdiction over it. The scheme of the Act is to regulate the relationship between landholders and tenants and it does not affect the rights inter se between persons setting up rights of ownership to a particular land or a dispute between an owner and a trespasser or a person other than a tenant. We are supported in this view by the decision in the case of Sharfuddin v. Sama Yelluga and others, (1957)2 An.W.R. 478, wherein it has been held :