BALWANT SINGH Vs. SARABJIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this appeal relates to two plots of land measuring 17 biswas which is in the occupation of the defendants. The land forms part of a larger area, the other half of which is in the occupation of the plaintiffs. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that they were the occupancy tenants of the plots in dispute, that the defendants had no concern with the occupancy rights of the said plots, and that they were wrongfully denying the exclusive title of the plaintiffs and setting themselves up as their co-tenants. The defendants asserted that they were partners in the occupancy holding of the plots in question with the plaintiffs, that the plots had been partitioned privately, and that the suit was barred by Section 11 of the Civil P. C.. They further pleaded that the suit was not maintainable and that the plaintiffs had no cause of action. The trial Court did not go into the merits of the claim. It dismissed the suit on the preliminary ground that the decision of the revenue Court in the previous case operated as a bar to the present suit and that the claim was also barred by Section 167 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The lower appellate Court affirmed that decree but with some reluctance.

(2.) It appears that a suit for the ejectment of the defendants was first filed by the plaintiffs in the revenue Court on an allegation that the defendants were their sub- tenants. The defendants denied in that case; that they were subtenants of the plaintiffs and pleaded that they were occupancy tenants of the said plots or in other words, co-occupancy tenants with the plaintiffs of the plots of which the land in dispute forms a part. The revenue Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the defendants were their sub-tenants, and that in all probability they were the co-tenants of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs now seek to establish that they are the sole occupancy tenants of the said land. They do not contest the finding of the revenue Court that the defendants were not holding the land in dispute as their sub-tenants. They seek to eject them as persons wrongfully claiming to be co-tenants of the occupancy holding with the plaintiffs. The question for consideration is whether after the decision of the revenue Court such a suit is maintainable in the civil Court.

(3.) The Tenancy Act is merely designed to regulate the relations between landlords and tenants, or between persons who hold such relationship by operation of law, mortgage, transfer or otherwise. The Act also provides for the devolution of tenancies and places some restrictions on the rights of tenants to transfer their holdings. But the object of those provisions again is to regulate the relations between the landlord and the persons claiming to be successors to the holding or transferees from the tenants. There are certain provisions which give the revenue Court the power to pass a decree in certain circumstances which would operate as a decree of a civil Court. But subject to those provisions the suits referred to in Section 167 of the Agra Tenancy Act other than suits between cosharers, are mainly suits intended to regulate the rights of landlords and tenants inter se.