YALLALAKA APANNA Vs. BHAGIRATHI PADHY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by an alleged tenant under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order in revision passed by the Additional District Collector of Ganjam declining to interfere with the orders of the two lower revenue authorities rejecting the Petitioner 's application for protection from eviction under Section 9(1)(a) of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act. Opposite party No. 1 Bhagirathi Padhy is admittedly the owner of the disputed land. In 1957 he filed a suit (Title Suit No. 32 of 1957) in the Court of He District Munsif, Parlakhimedi, against the Petitioner alleging that the latter had agreed to work as his agent or hired labourer for cultivating the disputed land in accordance with the terms of a contract and that he had failed to fulfil the terms and hence he prayed for a decree for delivering certain quantity of paddy and fur a permanent injunction restraining the Petitioner from interfering with his possession. The Petitioner entered appearance as Defendant in the suit and claimed to be a tenant of the Plaintiff entitled to protection from eviction under the provisions of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act (subsequently repealed and replaced by the Orissa Tenants Relief Act) and challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. The learned Munsif framed a preliminary issue on the question of jurisdiction and, following a Division Bench decision of this Court in Panjab Bissoi and Ors. v. Magati Sasamal, 23 C.L.T. 85 :, 2 S.C.D 83 held that on the facts of the case the Revenue authorities alone had jurisdiction to decide the question as to whether there was the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He accordingly stayed the hearing of the suit until that question was decided by the competent revenue authority under the provisions of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act. Thereupon the Petitioner filed an application under Section 9(1) of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act before the Orissa Tenants Relief Collector Parlakhimedi (M.P. 172 of 1958) for a declaration that he was a tenant of the opposite party and as such, entitled to protection from eviction by virtue of the provisions of that Act. The opposite party challenged the Petitioner 's status as a tenant and stated that he was merely a hired servant or agent of the landlord. The Orissa Tenants Relief Officer after a summary enquiry accepted the contention of the opposite party and dismissed the application of the Petitioner. The appellate and revisional revenue authorities upheld that order.

(2.) IN a recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Magati Sasamal v. Panjab Bissoi and Ors., 23 C.L.T. 85 :, 2 S.C.D 83 the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Pandab Bissoi and Ors. v. Magati Sasamal : A.I.R. 1957 Ori 17 was over ruled and it was held that the civil court 's jurisdiction to decide whether there was the relationship of landlord and tenant between the contesting parties was not taken away by the provisions of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act. Their Lordships came to this conclusion after construing the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of that Act (which correspond to Sections 9 and 10 of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act). It is thus no longer open to any party to question the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Parlakhimedi to decide this preliminary matter.

(3.) THAT decision arose out of a second appeal in a civil suit. The Orissa High Court, in : A.I.R. 1957 Ori 17 held on the pleadings of the parties that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit and that the revenue authorities alone had jurisdiction to hear it under Section 7 of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act. Hence they dismissed the suit. But their Lordships of the Supreme Court dissented from this view and held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Their Lordships were not concerned with the question as to whether in an application either by the landlord or by the tenant before a Revenue Officer under Section 7(1) of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act, that officer had jurisdiction to decide, as a preliminary issue, whether there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Here the admitted position is that the Petitioner alleging himself to be a tenant sought relief before the Orissa Tenants Relief Collector under Section 9(1) of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act, and asked for protection for eviction. The landlord entered appearance and challenged the status of the Petitioner as a tenant. The Revenue officer decided this preliminary question in a summary manner. In my opinion that officer had jurisdiction to decide this question. The classic observations of Lord Esher M.R. in apply with apply with full force here: As pointed out by his Lordship: