MAWASHI Vs. GRAM SABHA DAULATABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of the following facts. The appellant was a tenant of some agricultural land belonging to the respondent-Gram Sabha. It is alleged that he was inducted as a tenant in the year 1954 and that he continues to hold this land in the same capacity. The respondent-Gram Sabha filed an application before the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Gurgaon, alleging therein that the possession of the appellant had become unauthorised and that an order of ejectment should be passed against him. This petition was allowed and the appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, was also dismissed. After that the appellant filed a civil suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge, 3rd Class, Gurgaon, in which it was prayed that the proceedings before the Assistant Collector and the Commissioner were against law, mala fide and beyond their jurisdiction. The appellant prayed for a decree for perpetual injunction against the defendant-respondent-Gram Sabha as also that the Gram Sabha be restrained from interfering with the plaintiff-appellant's possession. This suit was contested by the respondent-Gram Sabha and the parties went to trial on the following issues :-

(2.) The learned trial Judge found that the appellant was a tenant in respect of this land and since the Sarpanch of the Gram Sabha had accepted the rent up to Rabi 1966 a new tenancy came into being into his favour and that he could not be ejected in execution of the orders passed by the Revenue authorities. The learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, upset this judgment in appeal.

(3.) Shri Gokal Chand Mittal, the learned counsel for the appellant had argued on the basis of Shyam Lal V. Murlidhar,1971 RCJ 609, and Gooderham and Worts Ltd. V. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 1949 AIR(PC) 90, that the acceptance of rent by a landlord creates a fresh tenancy in favour of the tenant and the earlier order of ejectment passed against him cannot be executed. On the other hand, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel for the respondent-Gram Sabha, has relied upon Ganga Dutt Murarka V. Kartik Chandra Das and others, 1961 AIR(SC) 1067, and Narata Ram V. Bhagwat Krishan and others,1960 PunLR 166, for the proposition that mere acceptance of rent from a statutory tenant does not estop the landlord to seek the ejectment of a tenant in execution of an order obtained against him. The learned counsel for the respondent-Gram Sabha also submitted that in view of rules 6, 7, 8 and 19 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called the Rules), the subject-matter of the present suit was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the authorities mentioned in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (hereinafter called the Act) and as such the civil Court was incompetent to try the present suit.