Case: S. Rama Iyer Vs. Sundarasa Ponnapoondar

1. On April 24, 1958, the respondent claiming to be the cultivating tenant of the appellant in respect of certain lands in Manapparavai Vattam, Nannilam Taluk deposited Rs. 462 as rent for 1367 fasli in the Revenue Court (the Court of the Revenue Divisional Officer), Tanjore under S. 3 (3) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (Madras Act No. 25 of 1955) and filed an application before the Court praying for a declaration that the amount deposited represented the correct amount of rent due from him. The appellant denied that the respondent was his cultivating tenant. On July 31, 1958, the Revenue Court, Tanjore held that the respondent was not a cultivating tenant of the appellant and could not claim the benefit of S. 3 (3) and dismissed the application. The respondent filed a petition in revision before the Madras High Court under S. 6-B of the Ac read with S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court came to the conclusion that the respondent was a cultivating tenant of the appellant and by its order, dated March 27, 1959, allowed the revision petition and declared that the amount deposited by the respondent represented the correct amount due from him to the appellant. The appellant now appeals to this Court by special leave.

Reasoning:
6. The Act gives generous protection to cultivating tenants from eviction, and severely restricts the right of landlords to resume possession of their land from their cultivating tenants. In case of disputes between the landlord and the cultivating tenant, the Revenue Divisional Officer is authorised to entertain and decide applications by the landlord for eviction and resumption of possession and by the cultivating tenant for restoration of possession and to impose penalties on the landlord or the tenant for infraction of S. 4-B.To attract the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer, there must be a dispute between a landlord and cultivating tenant. The existence of the relation of landlord and cultivating tenant between the contending parties is the essential condition for the assumption of jurisdiction by the Revenue Divisional Officer in all proceedings under the Act. The Tribunal can exercise its jurisdiction under the Act only if such relationship exists. If the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is challenged, it must enquire into the existence of the preliminary fact and decide if it has jurisdiction. But its decision on the existence of this preliminary fact is not final; such a decision is subject to review by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under S. 6-B.The enquiry by the Tribunal is summary, there is no provision for appeal form its decision, and the legislature could not have intended that its decision on this preliminary fact involving a question of title would be final and not subject to the overriding powers of revision by the High Court.7. In the present case, the Tribunal found that the respondent was not the cultivating tenant of the appellant, and on such finding declined to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by S. 3 (3) to determine the correct amount of rent due by the respondent to the appellant. The High Court had power to enquire into the correctness of this decision, and on finding that the tenancy existed and the Tribunal had erroneously refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by S. 3 (3), the High Court could set aside the decision under sub-s. (b) of S. 115 of the Code read with S. 6-B of the Act. On a review of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the High Court found that the respondent was the cultivating tenant of the appellant. It is not shown that this finding is erroneous. We see no reason for interfering with the decision of the High(a) empowers the High Court to correct an erroneous assumption of jurisdiction;(b) empowers it to correct an erroneous refusal of jurisdiction. The decision of the subordinate Court on all questions of law and fact not touching its jurisdiction is final and, however, erroneous such a decision may be, it is not revisable under(a) and (b) of S. 115. On the other hand, if by an erroneous decision on a question of fact or law touching its jurisdiction, e. g., on a preliminary fact upon the existence on which its jurisdiction depends, the subordinate Court assumes a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or fails to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, its decision is not final, and is subject to review by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under(a) and (b) of S. 115.The question is, on which side of the line the present case lies, and whether the decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer that the respondent is not a cultivating tenant of the appellant is subject to review by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The Revenue Divisional Officer is an inferior Court of limited jurisdiction functioning under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. To ascertain the limit and extent of its jurisdiction, we must examine the provisions of the Act.