PRAHLAD DORA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Maharaja of Parala-khemudi filed O. S. No. 727 of 1945 before the Rent suit Collector under Section 77 of the Madras Estate Land Act for recovery of rent for Faslis 1351, 1352 and 3353 corresponding to calendar years 1942, 1943 and 1944. The rent fell due on 1-7-42, 1-7-43 and 1-7-44. The suit was dismissed on 23-9-49 on the ground that the lands were not part of the estate and the plaintiff was not the land-holder under the Madras Estate Land Act and that the Revenue courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Rent Appeal No. 18 of 1950 was dismissed on 3-2-56 by the Additional District Judge, Ganjam. He agreed with the reasons of the Rent Suit Collector. The Maharaja accordingly took back the plaint and filed M. S. No. 14 of 1956 on 23-2-56 before the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur in conformity with the view of the Additional District Judge that the Civil Court had jurisdiction. The suit was decreed on 30th of November. 1959. Therein the question of jurisdiction was again raised by the tenants (appellant and respondents Nos. 2 to 6 ). The learned subordinate Judge held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction. Against this decree no appeal was filed and the matter became final and conclusive as between the parties. It is to be noted that the Maharaja assigned all his rights in respect of the disputed land to the State of Orissa and on the basis of the assignment the State of Orissa was impleaded as plaintiff in place of the Maharaja on 19-9-59. No objection was taken to this substitution in the suit itself and the matter stood concluded. The State levied E. P. 23 of 1962 for execution of the decree. The tenants filed objection under Section 47, C. P. C. , again challenging the decree as being without jurisdiction and nullity. The Subordinate Judge, Berhampur upheld this objection in m. J. C. No. 56 of 1963 and dismissed the execution application. In appeal the learned District Judge held that the suit being for recovery of arrears of rent, prior to the coming into force of the O. T. P. and O. T. R Acts was cognizable in Civil court. He accordingly allowed the appeal Against the appellate order, this miscellaneous appeal has been filed.

(2.) MR. Murty contended that by virtue of Section 9 (1) (b) proviso and Section 10 (1)it is only the O. T. R. Collector who could take cognizance of the cases for recovery of rent and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction.

(3.) THE two Sections, so far as relevant, run thus-Section 9 (1) Any dispute between the tenant and the landlord as regards (a) x x xx (b) failure of the tenant to deliver to the landlord the rent accrued due within two months from the date on which it becomes payable; shall be decided by the Collector on the application of either of the parties: provided that such application shall be be filed before the Collector in the prescribed manner within 60 days from the date on which the dispute arises or from date of the passing of this Act, whichever is later. Section 10 (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 9, all disputes arising between a landlord and a tenant shall be cognizable by a Civil Court. The learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that the recovery of rent relates to the period from 1942 to 1944 long prior to the coming into force of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act, 1948 (Orissa Act III of 1948) and the Orissa Tenants Relief Act, 1955 (Orissa Act V of 1955) which came into force on 1-9-1947 and 1-7-1954 respectively and that there is no lack of inherent jurisdiction in the civil Court in passing the decree. He also contends that the question of lack of inherent jurisdiction was specifically raised and negatived and the matter is barred by res judicata.