KALAL ESWARIAH Vs. LAKSHMI NARSAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the only point whether the suit filed by the respondent is maintainable or not requires consideration. The trial Court held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and hence the suit is not maintainable. But the appellate Court held that the suit is maintainable in as much as the Civil Court has jurisdiction.

(2.) Sri Syed Sadathullah Hussainie, the learned Counsel for the appellant, contends that the finding of the appellate court that the suit (s maintainable, is erroneous. According to him, Section 28 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) governs the matter, end hence it is the Tenancy Tribunal that is competent to enquire and dispose of the matter but not the Civil Court.

(3.) Sri A.V. Radhakrishna, the learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, contends that there is no provision in the Tenancy Act giving the right to landlord to recover the arrears and the landlord, therefore, has to resort to Civil Court to recover the arrears of rent. He therefore, contends that it is the Civil Court that has got the jurisdiction and the tower appellate Court is correct under law in holding that the Civil Court has jurisdiction.