RAM PRASAD SHARMA Vs. PRABHU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition a challenge is sought to be made to the judgment dt. 21.07.2014, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (hereinafter "the Board") upholding the judgment dt. 16.02.2012, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur (hereinafter "RAA") affirming the judgment and decree dt. 23.06.2011, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaipur (hereinafter "SDO") whereby the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff -landlord's suit for eviction and permanent injunction was decreed. The facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff -landlord (hereinafter "plaintiff -landlord") is the khatedar of khasra Nos. 120 & 267, village Titariya, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur. The plaintiff -landlord executed a lease -deed in favour of the petitioner -defendant -tenant (hereinafter "defendant -tenant") on 16.08.2007 whereby the defendant -tenant apparently came into possession of the aforesaid khatedari land of the plaintiff -landlord for the period of five years for consideration of Rs. 5,28,000/ -. It appears that the defendant -tenant however failed to pay the remainder sum of Rs. 1,53,000/ - within fifteen days of the execution of the lease -deed and therefore was in breach. Consequently the plaintiff -landlord sent a registered notice dt. 18.09.2007 to the defendant -tenant cancelling the lease -deed dt. 16.08.2007 and requiring that the possession of the leased property be handed back to him.

(2.) THE defendant -tenant having failed to hand back the possession of the - leased property despite being in breach thereof on non -payment of remainder due consideration as per terms of the lease itself in spite of receipt of notice, the plaintiff -landlord filed a suit for eviction of the defendant -tenant and for being put back into possession of the leased property. On service of the notice, the defendant -tenant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC asserting that the suit before the revenue Court was not maintainable as it was not covered under Sec. 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter "the Act of 1955") read with Schedule 3 thereof. It was the defendant -tenant's case that a breach of conditions of the lease -deed even though in respect of agricultural land and the purported cancellation thereof by the plaintiff -landlord brought the matter in dispute within the jurisdiction of the civil Court and the revenue Court had no jurisdiction to address the said dispute in the suit laid before it. Vide order dt. 23.11.2009 the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed by the SDO. Thereafter written statement of denial was filed by the defendant -tenant. Issues were framed by the SDO. On consideration of the evidence laid on the issues, the SDO found the defendant -tenant in breach of the conditions of the lease -deed dt. 16.08.2007 on having failed to pay the remainder consideration thereunder within the time prescribed and concluded that the lease having been duly cancelled by a notice receipted by the defendant -tenant entitled the plaintiff -landlord to be put in possession of the property in dispute. The judgment and decree dt. 23.06.2011, passed by the SDO, Jaipur was put to challenge by way of first appeal before the RAA, Jaipur which vide judgment dt. 16.02.2012 affirmed the judgment of the SDO. A further second appeal by the defendant -tenant to the Board of revenue met with a similar fate under the Board's judgment dt. 21.07.2014. Hence this petition.

(3.) MR . Prahlad Sharma, appearing for the plaintiff -landlord, as the respondent No. 1 before this Court, would submit that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of fact. He submits that the writ petition does not disclose the factum of the dismissal of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant -tenant by the SDO, Jaipur on 23.11.2009 wherein the very ground of the revenue Court lacking in jurisdiction to address the suit as laid was adjudicated and rejected. It has been submitted that the proceedings before this Court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India require the petitioner to approach the Court with clean hands and suppression of a material fact such as the dismissal of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by itself is sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the writ petition in limine. Counsel further submits that in any event there is no substance in the case set up by the defendant -tenant that the revenue Court had no jurisdiction to address the suit for eviction and possession qua agricultural land of which the plaintiff -landlord was admittedly the khatedar. It was submitted that in terms of Section 207 of the Act of 1955 read with Schedule 3 thereof, the revenue Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to address the suits of eviction and possession qua agricultural land and the jurisdiction of the civil Courts in such matters is absolutely barred.