TMI Blog1968 (8) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows: The respondent, Ganpatial, was the owner of Field Survey No. 56, measuring 25 acres 4 gunthas, in Yeotmal District. It appears that the respondent used to lease the land to the defendant, Dewaji - appellant before us and hereinafter called the appellant - on yearly lease. For the year 1950-51 he gave the land to the appellant on the condition that at the end of the year the lease will stand determined and the appellant will hand over possession. On May 7, 1951, the respondent served a notice on the appellant requiring him to vacate the land in suit. The appellant, however, continued to remain in possession. Thereupon the respondent filed a suit on September 17, 1951, praying for possession, damages and mesne profits. On November 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases (Amendment) Act 1953 - hereinafter called the 1953 Act. These sections run as follows: 16(1) Whenever any question arises whether any transaction between a landholder and a person claiming to be his lessee is a lease within the meaning of this Act, such question shall be decided by the Revenue Officer. (2) In deciding the question referred to in sub-section (1), the Revenue Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or in Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, or in any other law for the time being in force, have power to inquire into and determine the real nature of the transaction and shall be at liberty notwithstanding anythin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings. The learned Additional District Judge thereupon dismissed the appeal. 6. The appellant then appealed to the High Court. The appeal first came up for hearing before Vyas, J. By an order dated August 21, 1957, he held that in view of the amendments made by the 1953 Act, it is not for the Civil Court to decide but for the Revenue Officer to determine whether in the year 1951-52 also the defendant was paying to his landlord every week by way of rent one third share in the produce of the garden and was his lessee for that year also. He further observed that if the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the defendant would be entitled to all the benefits of a protected tenancy, as observed by the learned Chief Justice in P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not have referred the issue to the Revenue Officer for decision under Section 16 of the 1951 Act, but Badkas, J., held that it would not be appropriate for him to sit in judgment over the decision given by Vyas, J., and that the reference made by Vyas, J., under Section 16 of the 1951 Act had to be accepted. Accepting the finding of the Revenue Courts, Badkas, J., held that the respondent was not entitled to eject the appellant. He further held that it was not necessary to decide whether the 1951 Act was retrospective or not as the 1951 Act came into force during the year in which the defendant held survey numbers in question as lessee. He accordingly allowed the appeal. 9. Having obtained leave, the respondent appealed under the Letters ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , as substituted by the 1953 Act had clearly ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and Vyas, J., was right in sending the case to Revenue Courts for decision on the question whether the appellant was a tenant in the year 1951-52 or not. He stresses the word whenever appearing in Section 16 and says that this is a wide word and no limitation can be placed on it. In our view there is no substance in this contention. The first point to be noticed in this connection is that the 1953 Act came into force after the Trial Court had decreed the suit and an appeal was pending before the District Judge. It cannot be disputed that if the Legislature intends to oust the jurisdiction of Civil Courts, it must say so expressly or by necessary impli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as, J., in the interlocutory order dated August 21, 1957. At any rate the same point was raised before Badkas, J. Further, as held by this Court in Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Smt. Deorajin Devi, [1960]3SCR590 , an interlocutory order which did not terminate the proceedings and which had not been appealed from either because no appeal lay or even though an appeal lay an appeal was not taken, could be challenged in an appeal from the final decree or order. Section 105 (2), C. P. C, does not apply in this case, and, therefore, the Letters Patent Bench was entitled to go into the validity of the order passed by Vyas, J. 14. The learned Counsel then urges that this was a new point and the Letters Patent Bench should not have allowed it to be take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
