Skip to content


Dwarka Singh Vs. Jafar Ali Khan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934All1066
AppellantDwarka Singh
RespondentJafar Ali Khan and ors.
Cases ReferredNathu Lal v. Kewal Ram
Excerpt:
- - jafar ali khan intervened and wanted to join in the application, but later on, better advice prevailed and he got the application dismissed without paying necessary court-fee as required by sub-section (5). they then instituted a suit in the civil court for the recovery of the arrears of rent, but the defence taken by the tenant was that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. but even allowing him to change his ground, we are clearly satisfied that the revenue court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. it is quite clear that an assignee of rent can maintain his suit in the revenue court, and it is not necessary that he must at the same time have become a landholder as well......his ground, we are clearly satisfied that the revenue court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred as regards all suits of the nature specified in the fourth schedule. among these there is group a, serial no. 4, covering suits for arrears of rent including suits by an assignee and suits for arrears due to a person who has ceased to be a landholder. it is quite clear that an assignee of rent can maintain his suit in the revenue court, and it is not necessary that he must at the same time have become a landholder as well. this view was expressed in the case of nathu lal v. kewal ram 1934 all. 893, with which we agree.2. the second point urged is that in view of the dismissal of the application under section 81, agra tenancy act, the.....
Judgment:

1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent brought by an assignee of the rent from the original landholder. At first the original landholder applied under Section 81, Agra Tenancy Act, to the Tahsildar for the issue of notice for payment of the arrears of rent and for the ejectment of the tenant in case of default. An objection was raised that she had transferred the arrears to Jafar Ali Khan. Jafar Ali Khan intervened and wanted to join in the application, but later on, better advice prevailed and he got the application dismissed without paying necessary court-fee as required by Sub-section (5). They then instituted a suit in the Civil Court for the recovery of the arrears of rent, but the defence taken by the tenant was that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. On this plea being accepted the plaint was returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the Revenue Court. The plaintiffs then filed the present suit which has been continued by Jafar Ali Khan alone. It has been decreed in his favour. Two points are urged in appeal. The first is that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim because it is a suit for recovery of a debt which has been assigned to the plaintiffs. The defendant is obviously trying to send the plaintiffs from pillar to post and is going back upon his plea in the Civil Court that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. But even allowing him to change his ground, we are clearly satisfied that the Revenue Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred as regards all suits of the nature specified in the Fourth Schedule. Among these there is Group A, serial No. 4, covering suits for arrears of rent including suits by an assignee and suits for arrears due to a person who has ceased to be a landholder. It is quite clear that an assignee of rent can maintain his suit in the Revenue Court, and it is not necessary that he must at the same time have become a landholder as well. This view was expressed in the case of Nathu Lal v. Kewal Ram 1934 All. 893, with which we agree.

2. The second point urged is that in view of the dismissal of the application under Section 81, Agra Tenancy Act, the present suit does not lie. In the first place it is doubtful whether the assignee of the rent could be treated as a landholder within the meaning of Section 81 so as to have the locus standi to apply for the issue of notice for the payment of arrears of rent and for ejectment of the tenant in case of default. But in any case the proceeding has to be treated as a suit only on payment of the proper court-fee as provided in Sub-section (5). This payment was never made. It is therefore quite clear that the withdrawal of their application cannot operate as a bar or have the effect of res judicata so far as the present suit is concerned. In our opinion this point also has no force. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs as no one appears for the respondents.


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