Case: Magiti Sasamal Vs. Pandab Bissoi

about the status of the respondents was framed and so it had to be tried by the civil court. In such a suit if the civil court holds that the relationship between the landlord and the tenant had not been established it may proceed to deal with the suit on the merits. If, however, it holds that the said relationship is established then the civil court cannot deal with the dispute between the parties if it falls within any one of the categories specified by S. 7(1). In such a case, having made the finding about the relationship between the parties the civil court will either dismiss the suit on the ground that it can give no relief to the landlord, or may, if it is permissible to do so, return the plaint for presentation to the Collector. What course should be adopted in such a case it is unnecessary for us to decide in the present appeal. All that we wish to emphasise is that the initial dispute between the parties about the relationship subsisting between them will still continue to be tried by the civil court and is outside the purview of S. 7(1).13. In support of the argument that a dispute as to the existence of relationship as landlord and tenant should be taken to be included under S. 7(1) reliance is placed on the provisions of S. 8(1) of the Act. Section 8(1) provides that subject to the provisions, of S. 7 all disputes arising between landlord and tenant shall be cognisable by the revenue court and shall not be cognisable by the civil court. It must be pointed out that we are really not concerned with S. 8(1) in the present appeal because even according to the respondents the present dispute between the parties attracted S.7(1) and should have been tried by the Collector and not by the civil court. However, the question about the construction of S. 8 (1) has been incidentally raised before us. In appreciating the scope and effect of S. 8(1) it is necessary to bear in mind the provisions of S. 13 of the Act The said section provides that the Act shall, as far as may be, be read and construed as forming part of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 or as the case may be, of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1918. Therefore, reading the provisions of S. 8 (1) and S. 13 together it follows that all that S. 8(1) provides is that except for the disputes covered by S. 7(1) all disputes arising between landlord and tenant shall be cognisable by the revenue court and to the trial of such disputes by the revenue court the relevant provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913 would apply. It is true that disputes to which S. 8(1) applies are entrusted to the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue courts and are excluded from the jurisdiction of civil courts, but the effect of this provision will have to be considered in the light of the other relevant provisions if the parent Act of which this temporary Act forms a part. Now, if we turn to some of the relevant provisions of the parent Act it would be clear that when the revenue courts are given jurisdiction to try the disputes the enquiry held by them purports to be a formal enquiry to which the provisions of the Code of civil Procedure may apply (Vide: S. 192 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913). Similarly, the provisions of S. 204 (1) which provides for appeals contemplate appeals to the District Court and the High Court where questions of title are involved. These provisions illustrate the point that where serious disputes about title are entrusted to special tribunals usually the Legislature contemplates a formal enquiry and makes the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to such an enquiry and provides for appropriate appeals. Now, in regard to the order passed by the Collector under S.7 (1) the only provision about appeals is that by S. 11 which provides that an appeal shall be to the prescribed superior revenue authority whose decision shall be final, and shall not be subject to any further appeal or revision. Departure made by the Legislature in providing only one appeal and that too in every case to the prescribed superior revenue authority clearly brings out that the disputes which are entrusted to the Collector under S. 7 (1) are the simple disputes specified in the five categories and do not include a serious dispute the that of the relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant. If such a dispute had been intended to be tried by the Collector the Legislature would have provided for a formal enquiry and would have prescribed appropriate appeals on the lines of Ss. 192 and 204 of the parent Act.14. In this connection we may in passing refer to the provisions of S. 126 of the parent Act. This section deals with the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters relating to rent. Section 126 (3) provides for the institution of suits in civil courts on the grounds specified by Cls. (a) to (g). Clause (c) deals with the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist. This clause shows that if a dispute arose between the parties as to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant a suit in a civil court as contemplated is prescribed by S. 126 (3) (c). That also has some bearing on the construction of S. 7(1) and it is for that limited purpose that we have referred to it. Therefore, we are satisfied that the High Court was in error in holding that under S. 7(1) of the Act it was competent to the Collector to try the issue between the appellant and the respondents whether or not the respondents were the tenants of the appellant and that the civil court had not jurisdiction to entertain the said dispute.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]It would thus be seen that the Act purports to provide protection to tenants who were in possession of lands on the appointed day which is September 1, 1947. The other sub-sections of S. 3 make material and subsidiary provisions in regard to the said protection.It is true that having regard to the beneficent object which the Legislature had in view in passing the Act its material provisions should be liberally construed. The Legislature intends that the disputes contemplated by the said material provisions should be tried not by ordinary civil courts but by tribunals specially designated by it, and so in dealing with the scope and effect of the jurisdiction of such tribunals the relevant words used in the section should receive not a narrow but a liberalcan be no doubt that ordinarily a dispute in regard to the relationship between the parties such as that between a landlord and a tenant would be a dispute of a civil nature and would fall within the competence of the civil court. If the respondents contend that the jurisdiction of the civil court to deal with such a civil dispute has been taken away by S. 7(1) we must enquire whether S. 7(1) expressly takes away the said jurisdiction or whether the material words used in the section lead to such an inference or the scheme of the Act inescapably establishes such an inference. The relevance and materiality of both these principles are not inis the plain and obvious construction of the words "any dispute as regards". On this construction it would be unreasonable to hold that a dispute about the status of the tenant also falls within the purview of the said section. The scheme of S. 7.(1) is unambiguous and clear. It refers to the tenant and landlord as such and it contemplates disputes of the specified character arising between them. Therefore, in our opinion, even on a liberal construction of S. 7(1) it would be difficult to uphold the argument that a dispute as regards the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant falls to be determined by the Collector under S.is significant that the making of the enquiry and its mode are left to the discretion of the Collector.. If a serious dispute as to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had been covered by S. 7(1) it is difficult to imagine that the Legislature would have left the decision of such an important issue to the Collector giving him full freedom to make such enquiries as he may deem necessary. As is well known, a dispute as to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant raises serious questions of fact for decision, and if such a serious dispute was intended to be tried by the Collector the Legislature would have provided for an appropriate enquiry in that behalf and would have made the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to such an enquiry. Section 7(2) can be easily explained on the basis that the relationship between the parties is outside S. 7(1) and so the disputes that are covered by S. 7(1) are not of such a nature as would justify a formal enquiry in that behalf. The provisions of sub-ss. (3), (6) and (7) also indicate that the relationship between the parties is not, and cannot be, disputed before the Collector. The parties arrayed before him are landlord and tenant or vice versa, and it is on the basis of such relationship between them that he proceeds to deal with the disputes entrusted to him by S. 7(1).12. It is true that when the relationship of landlord and tenant is proved or admitted the disputes falling within the five categories enumerated in S. 7(1) will have to be tried by the Collector. Let us take the present case itself to illustrate how S. 7(1) will operate. In the suit filed by the appellant against the respondents the issue about the status of the respondents was framed and so it had to be tried by the civil court. In such a suit if the civil court holds that the relationship between the landlord and the tenant had not been established it may proceed to deal with the suit on the merits. If, however, it holds that the said relationship is established then the civil court cannot deal with the dispute between the parties if it falls within any one of the categories specified by S. 7(1). In such a case, having made the finding about the relationship between the parties the civil court will either dismiss the suit on the ground that it can give no relief to the landlord, or may, if it is permissible to do so, return the plaint for presentation to the Collector. What course should be adopted in such a case it is unnecessary for us to decide in the present appeal. All that we wish to emphasise is that the initial dispute between the parties about the relationship subsisting between them will still continue to be tried by the civil court and is outside the purview of S.must be pointed out that we are really not concerned with S. 8(1) in the present appeal because even according to the respondents the present dispute between the parties attracted S.7(1) and should have been tried by the Collector and not by the civil court. However, the question about the construction of S. 8 (1) has been incidentally raised beforereading the provisions of S. 8 (1) and S. 13 together it follows that all that S. 8(1) provides is that except for the disputes covered by S. 7(1) all disputes arising between landlord and tenant shall be cognisable by the revenue court and to the trial of such disputes by the revenue court the relevant provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913 would apply. It is true that disputes to which S. 8(1) applies are entrusted to the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue courts and are excluded from the jurisdiction of civil courts, but the effect of this provision will have to be considered in the light of the other relevant provisions if the parent Act of which this temporary Act forms a part. Now, if we turn to some of the relevant provisions of the parent Act it would be clear that when the revenue courts are given jurisdiction to try the disputes the enquiry held by them purports to be a formal enquiry to which the provisions of the Code of civil Procedure mayDeparture made by the Legislature in providing only one appeal and that too in every case to the prescribed superior revenue authority clearly brings out that the disputes which are entrusted to the Collector under S. 7 (1) are the simple disputes specified in the five categories and do not include a serious dispute the that of the relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant. If such a dispute had been intended to be tried by the Collector the Legislature would have provided for a formal enquiry and would have prescribed appropriate appeals on the lines of Ss. 192 and 204 of the parent Act.14. In this connection we may in passing refer to the provisions of S. 126 of the parent Act. This section deals with the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters relating to rent. Section 126 (3) provides for the institution of suits in civil courts on the grounds specified by Cls. (a) to (g). Clause (c) deals with the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist. This clause shows that if a dispute arose between the parties as to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant a suit in a civil court as contemplated is prescribed by S. 126 (3) (c). That also has some bearing on the construction of S. 7(1) and it is for that limited purpose that we have referred to it. Therefore, we are satisfied that the High Court was in error in holding that under S. 7(1) of the Act it was competent to the Collector to try the issue between the appellant and the respondents whether or not the respondents were the tenants of the appellant and that the civil court had not jurisdiction to entertain the said dispute.