BALKRISHNA NANDA Vs. RAMCHANDRA BHUYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in Second Appeal No. 209 of 1945, namely Balakrishna Nanda is the auction-purchaser of a ryoti holding No. 405 and he filed, two suits in the Court of the Munsiff, Title Suits Nos. 154 and 155 01 1941, for ejecting the defendants who were recorded as Sikimi tenants in respect of this holding and whose under-ryoti holdings were registered as Nos. 55 and 56. The learned Munsif who tried the suit gave a decree to the plaintiff for ejectment in respect of holding No. 55 and dismissed the plaintiff's suit in respect of holding No. 56. Both the parties preferred appeals to the Court of the Subordinate Judge who confirmed the decree of the District Munsiff, and both parties have come up in appeal to this Court. Second Appeal No. 209/1945 is the appeal filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff, Baiakrishna Nanda and Second Appeal No. 219/1945 is the appeal filed by the defendant against whom, a decree in ejectment had been passed.

(2.) It is not necessary for the purpose of disposing of this appeal to go into all the points that were in controversy before the Courts below. The main argument in this Court has turned round the question of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suits. Admittedly in both the suits the defendants were recorded as under-ryote and the plaintiff is the purchaser of the ryoti interest in the suit holding; and the suit is, in a sense, a suit by a ryot to eject the under-ryot as contemplated in Section 57 of the Orissa Tenancy Act. That section says that an under-ryot shall not be ejected by his landlord except (a) ..... (b) when holding otherwise than under a writen lease at the end of the agricultural year within, which a notice to quit has been served upon him by the landlord provided that such no ace has been served upon him not less than six months before the end of the year. It is not disputed that the notice contemplated by this Section has been served upon the defendant. The question, therefore, is what is the status of the underryot after receipt of the notice of ejectment served upon him under Section 57. Mr. L. K. Das Gupta appearing for the plaintiff-appellant contends that the status of the under-ryot after the notice to evict has been served is merely that of a trespasser and that the relationship of landlord and tenant ceases to exist on the service of the notice. Section 100 of the Orissa Tenancy Act provides how ejectment of a tenant can be brought about under the Act. It says :

(3.) The Courts below have erred in entertaining the suits and we therefore direct that the plaints should be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff shall bear his own costs in this Court as well as in the Courts below and pay the costs of the defendants throughout. Ray, C.J.