TMI Blog1953 (8) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, who are the opponents, for possession against their tenant who is the petitioner, under Section 29 of the Tenancy Act to the Mamlatdar, and a consent order was taken on August 24, 1948, by which the petitioner agreed to hand over possession to the opponents. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter there was a fresh tenancy agreement between him and the opponents and that was in July 1949, and by reason of this fresh tenancy agreement the petitioner continued to remain on the land and the landlords never took possession of it. It is further the case of the petitioner that in July 1950 he exchanged with the consent of the landlords 3 acres and 11 gunthas of the land demised to him with the same area which had been demised to an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 29(1) and inasmuch as the order of the Mamlatdar was under Section 70 by which he held that the petitioner was a tenant, the order passed by the Mamlatdar is clearly an order for the purposes of the Act and it cannot be challenged in a civil Court under Section 85 which ousts the jurisdiction of the civil Court to settle, decide or deal with, any question which is by or under the Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar or the other authorities set up under the Act. It is further pointed out that under Sub-section (2) of Section 85 no order of the Mamlatdar or of the other authorities shall be questioned in any civil or criminal Court. It is clear that the jurisdiction of the civil Court has been only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is ground that the order of the Mamlatdar is challenged as invalid and 'ultra vires'. 4. Now, in considering the jurisdiction of the Court, one does not consider the merits of the matter. A suit may be entirely frivolous and vexatious, there may be no merits about it, the contention taken up by the plaintiff may be unstateable, yet if the relief that the plaintiff seeks is a relief which the Court can grant, then the suit is filed in a Court with jurisdiction and the Court can maintain it. In this particular case the issue which directly arises and which issue has been raised by the learned Judge is whether the order of the Mamlatdar is an 'ultra vires' order. It may be that the plaintiffs will fail on that issue and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 74 are strictly appeals against valid orders made by the Mamlatdar and orders made with jurisdiction. It may be that the Collector could have corrected the Mamlatdar and could have held that the order of the Mamlatdar was 'ultra vires'. But the question is not whether the opponents could have appealed to the Collector and could have got the necessary relief. The question is whether the opponents are bound to appeal and are prevented or precluded from going to a civil Court. In our opinion, on principle it is erroneous to argue that merely because, a statute provides for a right of appeal, the party against whom the order is made is bound to appeal although the order made is a nullity. If the order is a nullity, the party is en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luxury of having it ultimately dismissed, but every litigant has not the right, having put a suit on file, to get an injunction from the Court, In this 'case the suit has yet to be decided by the trial Court, and, therefore, we refrain from expressing any views on the merits. But if the contention put forward by Mr. Purshottam is correct, viz., that the petitioner filed an application under Section 29(1) which he was entitled to do, that the Mamlatdar has held him to be a tenant which the Mamlatdar was entitled to do, and that it is from this order that the opponents have gone to the civil Court, then it seems to us that the Court must immediately consider whether there is any basis whatsoever for the suit filed by the opponents. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
