MOHAN LAL Vs. NAHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal by the defendant has arisen in the following circumstances. The land in suit, which is fully described in the plaint and is situated in the area of village Ferozepur, Sub -Tehsil Dhuri, belonged to one Shariff Hassan who sold the same to Nahar Singh respondent for Rs.4,500/ - by virtue of a registered sale deed dated the 24th of February, 1955. At that time the appellant was occupying the land as a tenant which status he continued to hold under the respondent after the sale. Alleging that the appellant had failed to pay the rent due in respect of his tenancy, the respondent filed an application against him for recovery of arrears of rent before village Panchayat. A compromise between the two contending parties was arrived at before the Panchayat on the 16th of June, 1956, and according to the terms thereof the appellant agreed to relinquish possession of the land while the respondent gave up his claim to all arrears of rent. This compromise was incorporated in a resolution (Exhibit P. 1) passed by the Panchayat on the same day on which the respondent also obtained possession of the land.

(2.) ON the 21st of June, 1955, the appellant made an application (Exhibit D. 11) under section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Malerkotla, alleging that he had been forcibly dispossessed of the land by the respondent and praying for restoration thereof. This application was dismissed on the 2nd of April, 1959, on the ground that the Sub Divisional Magistrate did not enjoin the powers of a Collector and that the application was not maintainable unless the compromise evidenced by Exhibit P. 1 was set aside by a competent Court. A petition for revision of the order made by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate was dismissed by the Commissioner, Patiala.

(3.) IN Rai Brij Raj Krishna and another v. Messrs S. K. Shaw and Brothers : A. I R 1951 S. C. 115, the question was whether the Controller had jurisdiction under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, to determine the question of non -payment of rent and whether his finding could be questioned in a civil court. Adverting to various provisions of the Bihar Act, their Lordships expressed the opinion that it had set up a complete machinery for the investigation of those matters upon which the jurisdiction of the Controller to order eviction of a tenant depended, that it expressly made his order final (subject only to the decision of the Commissioner), that it empowered the Controller alone to decide whether or not there was non -payment of rent and that his decision on that question was essential before an order of eviction could be passed by him Their Lordships then referred with approval to the following observations of Lord Esher, MR. in The Queen v. Commissioner for Special Purposes of the Income -tax, (1888) 21 Q B. D 313 at page 319: