NATHU LAL Vs. KEWAL RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a judgment of a learned Judge of this Court affirming the decrees of the Courts below passed in a suit for arrears of rent brought by an assignee of rent due to occupancy tenants from a sub- tenant. It appears that Bir Lal and Pati were occupancy tenants who had sub-let the lands to their subtenant Nathu Lal and rents were due from Nathu Lal for the years 1333 to 1335 Pasli. After the rents had fallen due, the occupancy tenants sold the arrears of rent to the present plaintiff Kewal Ram who brought the suit in the Revenue Court. The defence was that the rents had al. ready been paid to the occupancy tenants and that the sale-deed in favour of Kewal Ram was without consideration. No objection was taken that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The two pleas were overruled and the claim was decreed by the first Court. On appeal before the District Judge, again, no point was taken that the suit was not cognizable by the Revenue Court; only the pleas taken in the written statement were pressed, which were rejected.

(2.) In second appeal in the High Court, a point was taken for the first time that the revenue Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit inasmuch as the plaintiff had merely acquired the right to recover the debt and was not a land-holder. The learned Judge has overruled this objection on the ground that the point was not taken in the trial Court and the defect, if any, was cured by Section 268, Agra Tenancy Act. It does not appear to have been urged before the learned Judge that the case if not cognizable by the Revenue Court, was cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and that therefore no appeal would have lain to the District Judge and accordingly Section 268 was inapplicable. These points however are urged before us in this Letters Patent appeal. As the question is one of jurisdiction, we have allowed them to be raised, even though it is such a late stage.

(3.) No doubt under the old Rent Act (12 of 1881), it was held in some cases by this Court that a suit brought by an assignee of rent was cognizable by the Civil Court and not by a Revenue Court : vide, Ganga Prasad V/s. Chandrawati (1884) 7 All. 256 and Antu Singh V/s. Ajudhia Sahu (1887) 9 All. 249. But in a case arising under the Agra Tenancy Act (2 of 1901), a single Judge of this Court in Kanhai ram V/s. Sukhdeo 1914 All. 164, did not follow these earlier rulings on the ground that they were no longer applicable, in view of a different language employed in the Tenancy Act. Tudball, J., distinctly held that a Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for arrears of rent assigned to the plaintiff by certain occupancy tenants to whom it is payable, and that such a suit is purely and simply a suit to recover from the defendant a sum of money which is alleged to be due on account of the rent of his holding and is a suit of the nature contemplated by the Tenancy Act, of which only the Revenue Court can take cognizance. The learned Judge further held that such a suit not being cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, a second appeal was not barred. It seems to me that the position has now been made much clearer by the Legislature. Generally speaking, the policy underlying the new Tenancy Act, seems to be to transfer all suits of a nature in which dispute arises regarding rents and holdings to Revenue Courts. Now, suits brought against grove, holders and thekadars are triable by the Revenue Courts only.