GULAB Vs. DALIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an ex-parte appeal. But Mr. Sandal has put the Court in possession of cases deciding both in favour of the view contended for by him and in favour of the view against his contention, and I have, therefore, no difficulty in deciding the case.

(2.) The facts established are these: The respondent obtained a written lease from an occupancy tenant on the 1 of May 1921, it having been agreed that he would be put in possession on the 1 of July 1921. The occupancy tenant, however, did not put the respondent in possession, but, instead, put the appellant in possession. Thereupon the respondent brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, claiming possession and mesne profits.

(3.) The Court of first instance dismissed the suit holding that it was cognizable by the revenue Court alone and was, further, barred by six months rule of limitation. The appellate Court has decreed the suit, hence the appeal. The contention for the appellant is that the respondent ought to have brought a suit under Section 79 of the Tenancy Act of 1901 and a suit in the civil Court was not maintainable. It followed from this contention that, if Section 79 of the Tenancy Act applied, the short period of six months rule of limitation would also apply.