BARAIK KARAN SINGH Vs. BIKRAM SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case raises a point of procedure under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. The plaintiff sued tenants for rent the amount of the claim being under Rs. 100. The appellant before us who is a third party intervened in the suit under the procedure provided by Section 177 of the Act and asserted that he (the intervenor) had actually and in good faith received and enjoyed the rent before and up to the time of the institution of the suit.

(2.) The suit was tried under the section before the Deputy Collector who delivered his decision holding that the intervenor had made out his claim and had in fact bona fide received the rent. The Deputy Collector went beyond the functions assigned to him by Section 177 and observed that in the circumstances the relationship of landlord and tenant had not been established by the plaintiff and used expressions which might be taken as a decision that the intervenor was the rightful landlord. Now the section clearly prevents ony question of title being investigated in a rent suit of this character and the proviso to the section clearly states that a decision under the section shall not affect the right of any party who may have a legal title to such rent to establish such title by suit in a civil Court if instituted within one year from the date of the decision.

(3.) From this decision the landlord plaintiff appealed and under the impression which is an excusable impression in the circumstances, that the decision had affected the question of title as between himself and tenants he appealed to the Judicial Commissioner. The section which regulates appeals under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act is Section 218 and under Sub-section (2) of that section an appeal lies from the Deputy Collector to the Deputy Commissioner, but in questions of title an appeal lies to the Judicial Commissioner and for this reason the landlord, as I have said, preferred his appeal to the Judicial Commissioner. The Judicial Commissioner proceeded to deal with the case and apparently had not his attention called to the contention that the appeal should have lain not to him but to the Deputy Commissioner. He decreed the suit and decided against the intervenor.