PICHAMMA Vs. GURAVIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the judgment of the Munsif, Huzuroagar, dismissing the suit under section 9 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 filed by the Revision-Petitioner on the ground that Section 99 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (XXI of 1950), bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The learned Munsif held that the revision-petitioner had admitted in certain revenue proceedings that the respondent was his tenant and presumably applying Section 37 of the Hyderabad Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, came to the conclusion that the respondent was a protected tenant within the meaning of that section and consequently, (though he does not say so in so many words) he very probably thought that landlords should apply to the Tahsildar under Section 32 (2) instead of seeking a remedy in a Civil Court, the jurisdiction of which, accotding to him, is barred by Section 99. Section 99 is as follows :

(2.) The essential thing which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is that which is required to be settled or decided or dealt with by a Tahsildar, Tribunal or Collector or by the Board of Revenue or Government under the provisions of the Act. It is, therefore, necessary to see whether the remedy sought for by the revisionpetitioner is required to be settled, or decided under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. In order to determine this it is necessary to state a few facts. The revision-petitioner was in possession of her lands when she alleged the respondents ejected her forcibly without any legal justification. The Munsif came to the conclusion on the evidence that she was in fact illegally ejected by the respondents four months prior to the suit. It is as a result of this action of the respondents that she filed a suit under Section 9 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963, which in so far as it is relevant is as under:

(3.) The question, therefore, is whether the revision-petitioner could under the provisions of this Central Act seek the remedy under Section 9 or should she be obliged to have recourse to the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The only provisions to which my attention has been directed by the learned advocate for the revision-petitioner is sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Tenancy Act which is as under: