(1.) Plaintiffs in two connected suits Nos. 475 and 476 of 1922 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Poonamallee brought under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act were unsuited on the ground that on the date of the suits, the plaint- lands although trespassed upon by defendants were leased to others and therefore only their lessees and not plaintiffs themselves were entitled to sue. This petition is brought in order to revise that decision.
(2.) Plaintiffs have their remedy by way of suit and in such circumstances this Court will not ordinarily interfere by way of revision Devata Sri Ramamurthi v. Venkata Sitarama-chandra Row (1914) M.W.N. 95. But if the remedy is clear, the parties will not necessarily be driven to another suit Sri Krishnadoss V/s. Chanduk Chand (1908) I.L.R. 32 Mad 334 : 19 M.L.J. 307. Therefore the question for determination in this case resolves itself into whether there is clear authority supporting or controverting the decision of the District Munsif.
(3.) There has been sharp divergence of judicial opinion upon the point as was clearly revealed when it came before a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Blennerhassett, J., could see no reason why a landlord who has put a tenant in possession should not himself sue to eject a trespasser. Edge,C.J., affirmed as prevailing all the world over that when a man creates a tenancy under him which entitles the tenant to the exclusive use of the property the man creating the tenancy cannot have any right to actual possession so long as the tenant is entitled to possession. It was accordingly held with the concurrence of four other Judges that in these circumstances plaintiff might be entitled to a declaratory decree; that the trespasser could not interfere with his right to receive rent; and a decree to be put into possession of the rents; but so long as he did not himself possess the right to enjoy physical possession he could not eject the trespasser. Sitaram V/s. Ram Lal (1896) I.L.R. 18 All 440 (F B).