BALDEO KURMI Vs. KASHI CHAMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference to this Court made by the Collector of Basti under Section 195 of the Tenancy Act, because he doubted whether the appeal pending before him in a particular matter should be filed in a civil or a revenue Court. One Kashi Chamar sued the defendant, Baldeo Kurmi, for ejectment; and one of the grounds of defence was that the defendant cultivated the land in dispute as tenant of the Raja of Bansi and paid rent to him. The plaintiff's case was that he was an occupancy tenant of the land and Baldeo Kurmi was his sub-tenant. The Assistant Collector decided that Kashi was occupancy tenant of the land and that Baldeo was his sub-tenant.

(2.) The learned Collector was of opinion that the appeal would lie to a Civil Court if the principle of the ruling in the case of Har Prasad V/s. Tujammul Hussain (1919) 4 Unpublished Decisions of the Board 102 were followed. The Board of Revenue has dissented from that ruling in Kundan V/s. Jawahir (1919) 4 Unpublished Decisions of the Board 102,

(3.) In my opinion, the facts of this case do not call for a decision as to which of the views in the two judgments is correct. The question before me is covered by authority. In Niranjan V/s. Gajadhar (1908) 30 All 133 one Niranjan applied as owner of a fixed rate holding for ejectment of Gajadhar on the ground that Gajadhar was his sub-tenant. The Assistant Collector dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge who made a reference to this Court, as he was not in agreement with a Single Judge decision of this Court in Chhittar Singh V/s. Rup Singh (1906) 3 ALJ 603. A Bench of this Court held that the appeal lay to the revenue Court and not to the civil Court.