1. The appellant in Second Appeal No. 209 of 1945, namely Balakrishna Nanda is the auction-purchaser of a ryoti holding No. 405 and he filed, two suits in the Court of the Munsiff, Title Suits Nos. 154 and 155 01 1941, for ejecting the defendants who were recorded as Sikimi tenants in respect of this holding and whose under-ryoti holdings were registered as Nos. 55 and 56. The learned Munsif who tried the suit gave a decree to the plaintiff for ejectment in respect of holding No. 55 and dismissed the plaintiff's suit in respect of holding No. 56. Both the parties preferred appeals to the Court of the Subordinate Judge who confirmed the decree of the District Munsiff, and both parties have come up in appeal to this Court. Second Appeal No. 209/1945 is the appeal filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff, Baiakrishna Nanda and Second Appeal No. 219/1945 is the appeal filed by the defendant against whom, a decree in ejectment had been passed.
2. It is not necessary for the purpose of disposing of this appeal to go into all the points that were in controversy before the Courts below. The main argument in this Court has turned round the question of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suits. Admittedly in both the suits the defendants were recorded as under-ryote and the plaintiff is the purchaser of the ryoti interest in the suit holding; and the suit is, in a sense, a suit by a ryot to eject the under-ryot as contemplated in Section 57 of the Orissa Tenancy Act. That section says that an under-ryot shall not be ejected by his landlord except
(a) ..... (b) whenholding otherwise than under a writen lease at the end of the agricultural year within, which a notice to quit has been served upon him by the landlord provided that such no ace has been served upon him not less than six months before the end of the year.
It is not disputed that the notice contemplated by this Section has been served upon the defendant. The question, therefore, is what is the status of the under-ryot after receipt of the notice of ejectment served upon him under Section 57. Mr. L. K. Das Gupta appearing for the plaintiff-appellant contends that the status of the under-ryot after the notice to evict has been served is merely that of a trespasser and that the relationship of landlord and tenant ceases to exist on the service of the notice. Section 100 of the Orissa Tenancy Act provides how ejectment of a tenant can be brought about under the Act.
It says :
'No tenant shall be ejected from his tenure orholding except in execution of a decree.'
An under-ryot is a tenant within the definitionsection of the Orissa Tenancy Act and the evictionof such a tenant can be brought about only in themode prescribed by the Act. It is well establishedthat where an Act gives a new jurisdiction, a new procedure, new forms and new remedies there prescribed must be strictly complied with : See 'QUEEN 7. COUNTY COURT OP ESSEX', (1887) 18 Q B D 704 at p. 708. I have, therefore, no doubt in my mind that a notice to quit notwithstanding, an under-ryot, is a tenant whose eviction can only be ordered by a decree of the Rent Court. Mr. Das Gupta, however, relies upon a decision of the Patna High Court reported in 'TELENGA v. CHANDRA MOHAN', AIR (20 1933 Pat 664, which was a case under Section 139 (4) of the Chhota-Nagpur Tenancy Act. Fazl All, J., as he then was, held that after the tenancy had been terminated the relationship between landlord and tenant did not exist and, therefore, the suit for ejectment would lie in a Civil Court, In arriving at this decision His Lordship relied upon an earlier case of that Court reported in 'NANDU MAHTON v. BHOLU MAHTON', AIR (17) 1930 Pat 143. It was observed in that case under the amended Chhota-Nagpur Tenancy Act that the Civil Court was competent to entertain a, suit if the relationship of landlord and tenant did not subsist. It would appear from this decision that the amendment introduced in the Chhota-Nagpur Tenancy Act specifically provided for the institution of such suits in the Civil Court, but how the relationship of landlord and tenant can be terminated is not clear from either of the decision. So far as the Orissa Tenancy Act is concerned we have to proceed on a bare reading of the sections which leave no room for coming to any conclusion other than the one we have arrived at. Section 193 of the Act specifically lays down that all suite and applications under any portion of the Act other than Chapter XI would be cognizable by the Collector and not be cognizable in any other Court. In the case before us the suit, in form and substance, is a suit by a landlord against his tenant in ejectment' after notice to quit is served -- a condition which must be fulfilled in order that the landlord may enforce his right to eject -- and Section 100 provides the machinery by which the ejectment can be worked out. Section 193, therefore, forbids such suits from being entertained in any Court other than the Rent Court.
3. The Courts below have erred in entertaining the suits and we therefore direct that the plaints should be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff shall bear his own costs in this Court as well as in the Courts below and pay the costs of the defendants throughout.
4. I agree.