Skip to content


Kalian Das Vs. Tika Ram and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1880)ILR2All137
AppellantKalian Das
RespondentTika Ram and anr.
Excerpt:
act xviii of 1873 (n.w.p. rent act), section 95, (m) and (n) - jurisdiction--civil court--revenue court. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and..........the plaintiff, appellant, is a sub-tenant, claiming under a lease for a term of twenty years. the occupancy-tenant, defendant, under whom he holds was ejected in execution of a decree held by the zamihdar, also impleaded in this suit. though plaintiff, appellant, was no party to the suit in which a decree had been made against the occupancy-tenant, he nevertheless lost his possession when the decree was executed. subsequently the decree of which execution was taken out was set aside, and the defendant, the occupancy-tenant, resumed possession of his holding, but refused to give it up to the plaintiff, his sub-tenant. the suit is one which, in our opinion, is cognizable by the civil court, and the claim not one regarding which application could have been preferred to the collector under.....
Judgment:

Spankie, J.

1. The plaintiff, appellant, is a sub-tenant, claiming under a lease for a term of twenty years. The occupancy-tenant, defendant, under whom he holds was ejected in execution of a decree held by the zamihdar, also impleaded in this suit. Though plaintiff, appellant, was no party to the suit in which a decree had been made against the occupancy-tenant, he nevertheless lost his possession when the decree was executed. Subsequently the decree of which execution was taken out was set aside, and the defendant, the occupancy-tenant, resumed possession of his holding, but refused to give it up to the plaintiff, his sub-tenant. The suit is one which, in our opinion, is cognizable by the Civil Court, and the claim not one regarding which application could have been preferred to the Collector under Section 95 of the Rent Act. We are fortified in this opinion by a precedent of this Court S.A. No. 1115 of 1877 not reported dated 1st March 1878. We decree the appeal, reverse the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, and return the case to that Court for retrial on the merits. Costs will abide the result of a new trial.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //