RAJA RAM Vs. RAGHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this civil writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the question that arises is whether the Revenue Courts would have jurisdiction under Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act where the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant is in dispute between the parties.

(2.) The facts of the case are that Raghbir Singh, respondent No. 1, filed a suit for ejectment in respect of land in dispute having an area of 55 Kanals 13 Marlas alleging that Raja Ram, petitioner No. 1, was his tenant and that he had inducted into the property, Ji Ram, petitioner No. 2. Raja Ram, petitioner No. 1, took up the position that his deceased father had purchased this land at a Court auction benami in the name of Raghbir Singh, respondent No. 1, and that a fictitious lease deed had been executed between between the parties in March 1940 showing that petitioner No. 1 was in possession as a lessee. On the expiry of the 12 years term of this lease, petitioner No. 1 continued in possession and the entries in the Jamabandi showed that he was paying no rent to respondent No. 1 as he was considered to be the owner. The Assistant Collector, respondent No. 5, in whose Court the ejectment suit was pending, framed a preliminary issue whether the Revenue Court had jurisdiction to decide this controversy. The preliminary issue framed ran as follows :-

(3.) The petitioners claim that the Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to try the dispute and that their orders are illegal and without jurisdiction. It is contended that the Revenue Courts would have jurisdiction under Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act only when there was no dispute with regard to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Revenue Courts were said to have no jurisdiction to decide the plea of Benami nature of the purchase of the land at a Court sale. It was, therefore, prayed that the orders of the Revenue Courts should be quashed and they may be directed not to proceed with the hearing of the ejectment suit filed by respondent No. 1.