JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is an application by an alleged tenant under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order in revision passed by the Additional District Collector of Ganjam declining to interfere with the orders of the two lower revenue authorities rejecting the Petitioner's application for protection from eviction u/s 9(1)(a) of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act. Opposite party No. 1 Bhagirathi Padhy is admittedly the owner of the disputed land. In 1957 he filed a suit (Title Suit No. 32 of 1957) in the Court of He District Munsif, Parlakhimedi, against the Petitioner alleging that the latter had agreed to work as his agent or hired labourer for cultivating the disputed land in accordance with the terms of a contract and that he had failed to fulfil the terms and hence he prayed for a decree for delivering certain quantity of paddy and fur a permanent injunction restraining the Petitioner from interfering with his possession. The Petitioner entered appearance as Defendant in the suit and claimed to be a tenant of the Plaintiff entitled to protection from eviction under the provisions of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act (subsequently repealed and replaced by the Orissa Tenants Relief Act) and challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. The learned Munsif framed a preliminary issue on the question of jurisdiction and, following a Division Bench decision of this Court in Panjab Bissoi and Ors. v. Magati Sasamal 23 C.L.T. 85 : 2 S.C.D 83 held that on the facts of the case the Revenue authorities alone had jurisdiction to decide the question as to whether there was the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He accordingly stayed the hearing of the suit until that question was decided by the competent revenue authority under the provisions of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act. Thereupon the Petitioner filed an application u/s 9(1) of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act before the Orissa Tenants Relief Collector Parlakhimedi (M.P. 172 of 1958) for a declaration that he was a tenant of the opposite party and as such, entitled to protection from eviction by virtue of the provisions of that Act. The opposite party challenged the Petitioner's status as a tenant and stated that he was merely a hired servant or agent of the landlord. The opposite party challenged the Petitioner's status as a tenant and stated that he was merely a hired servant or agent of the landlord. The Orissa Tenants Relief Officer after a summary enquiry accepted the contention of the opposite party and dismissed the application of the Petitioner. The appellate and revisional revenue authorities upheld that order. 2. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Magati Sasamal v. Panjab Bissoi and Ors. 23 C.L.T. 85 : 2 S.C.D 83 the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Pandab Bissoyi and Others Vs. Magiti Sasamal, was over ruled and it was held that the civil court's jurisdiction to decide whether there was the relationship of landlord and tenant between the contesting parties was not taken away by the provisions of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act. Their Lordships came to this conclusion after construing the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of that Act (which correspond to Sections 9 and 10 of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act). It is thus no longer open to any party to question the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Parlakhimedi to decide this preliminary matter. 3. Mr. Misra further contended that the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court should be construed to mean that the Revenue authority had no jurisdiction whatsoever in an application u/s 9(1) of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act to decide even as a preliminary issue, the question as to whether there was the relationship of landlord and tenant if such a dispute was raised before him, and that consequently this Court should quash tile order of the Orissa Tenant Relief Officer and also the decisions of the appellate and revisional revenue authorities. This has necessitated an examination of the point that was decided in the aforesaid Supreme Court decision. 4. That decision arose out of a second appeal in a civil suit. The Orissa High Court, in Pandab Bissoyi and Others Vs. Magiti Sasamal, held on the pleadings of the parties that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit and that the revenue authorities alone had jurisdiction to hear it u/s 7 of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act. Hence they dismissed the suit. But their Lordships of the Supreme Court dissented from this view and held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Hence they dismissed the suit. But their Lordships of the Supreme Court dissented from this view and held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Their Lordships were not concerned with the question as to whether in an application either by the landlord or by the tenant before a Revenue Officer u/s 7(1) of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act, that officer had jurisdiction to decide, as a preliminary issue, whether there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Here the admitted position is that the Petitioner alleging himself to be a tenant sought relief before the Orissa Tenants Relief Collctor u/s 9(1) of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act, and asked for protection for eviction. The landlord entered appearance and challenged the status of the Petitioner as a tenant. The Revenue officer decided this preliminary question in a summary manner. In my opinion that officer had jurisdiction to decide this question. The classic observations of Lord Esher M.R. in apply with apply with full force here: As pointed out by his Lordship: When an inferior court or tribunal or body which has to exercise the power of deciding facts as first established by an Act of Parliament the Legislature as to consider what powers it will give that tribunal or body. It may in effect say that if a certain state of facts exists and is shown to such tribunal or body before it proceeds to do certain things, it shall have jurisdiction to do such things but not otherwise; there it is not for them conclusively to decide whether the state of facts exists and if they exercise jurisdiction without its existence what they do may be questioned and it will be held that they have acted without jurisdiction. Here also the Legislature while passing the Orissa Tenants Relief Act conferred jurisdiction on the Revenue authority to decide matters fully described in section 9 of that Act. Hence that revenue authority has the initial jurisdiction to decide whether the state of facts exists on the basis of which it shall have jurisdiction to decide other questions. But that authority's decision of the preliminary issue will not be final and conclusive. Hence that revenue authority has the initial jurisdiction to decide whether the state of facts exists on the basis of which it shall have jurisdiction to decide other questions. But that authority's decision of the preliminary issue will not be final and conclusive. The aforesaid observations of Lord Esher M.R. have been cited with approval in several subsequent English decisions and I need only refer to (1956) W.L.R. 289, where their Lordships of the Privy Council observed that the decision of a preliminary question can never be anything more than a collateral finding which cannot raise a plea of res judicata in a subsequent action. In a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Rai Brij Raj Krishna and Another Vs. S.K. Shaw and Brothers, the aforesaid observations of Lord Esher were quoted with approval. It must accordingly be held that the Orissa Tenants Relief Officer had undoubted jurisdiction, in. an application u/s 9 of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act to decide whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. But as the Act does not make the decision of this preliminary point conclusive his decision will not operate as res judicata and as pointed out in the Supreme Court decision in 28 C.L.T. 85 the Civil Court's jurisdiction to decide this very question conclusively between the parties is not taken away. 5. To hold otherwise would render the Orissa Tenants Relief Act unworkable in a majority of cases. The primary object of that Act was to give relief to certain classes of tenants and to prevent their unreasonable eviction as stated in the Preamble. The Act provides for a special machinery for speedy relief to those tenants who have been unlawfully evicted by their landlords and also provides for a summary method of deciding such disputes between landlords and tenants. It is when known that litigation in the Civil Courts is costly and dilatory and though it may not be very enerous on the landlord it will certainly be very burdensome on a bhagchassi tenant. When a tenant applies to the revenue authority u/s 9(1) for protection from eviction it is natural for the landlord to take the plea that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. When a tenant applies to the revenue authority u/s 9(1) for protection from eviction it is natural for the landlord to take the plea that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. If it be held that once such a dispute is raised the Revenue authority has no jurisdiction to decide it even as a collateral issue and that he must refer the parties to the Civil Court for the decision of the same the net result will be that most of the tenants may not be able to get summary relief from eviction and they will be compelled to go to the Civil Court and await the results of a protracted litigation. Instances in which the tenancy is readily admitted by the other side will be very rare indeed. The reasonable view, following the aforesaid observations of Lord Esher is that the revenue officer also has jurisdiction to decide collaterally the preliminary issue about the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but that decision can again be challenged in the Civil Court by the aggrieved party. But there seems no authority for holding that the Revenue officer has no jurisdiction whatsoever to decide this preliminary point and that the moment it is raised he should refer the parties to the Civil court and close the case. 6. Mr. Misra for the Petitioner thereupon urged that he would not press O.J.C. if it is made clear that the decision of the revenue authorities is open to challenge before the Munsif of Parlakhimedi in Title Suit No. 32 pf 1957 which is still pending. This has been done in the preceding paragraph. The O.J.C. is disposed of accordingly with the said observations. There will be no order for costs. Das. J. 7. I agree.