JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the affirming decree of the learned District Judge of Koraput at Jeypore in a suit for ejectment of the defendants from 3-50 acres of land on the footing that the defendants have forfeited their tenancy. There has also been a claim for recovery of arrears of rent. 2. Krupasindhu and Dinabandhu who happened to be two brothers owned the disputed property. The plaintiff was adopted by Krupasindhu. After the death of Krupasindhu his widow Annapurna and Dinabandhu who were jointly enjoying the property executed a registered lease in favour of the predecessors of the defendants on 5-10-1937 (Ext. 1) in terms whereof, permanent and heritable right of tenancy was created in favour of the tenants. It was stipulated that they would pay rent partly in cash and partly in kind by Magha Purnima of every year. In case of default in payment of rent for three consecutive years, the lessees would be liable for ejectment. Dinabandhu died issue-less and his joint interest devolved upon Annapurna and she became the sole zeroiti tenant. Annapurna died in December, 1962, and the plaintiff came to be the sole heir. The defendants paid rent up to 1961, but defaulted in making payment in May 1961, and also there was further default in May 1962 and May 1963, in the matter of payment of rent. In view of continuous default of three years, on 29-5-1969, the plaintiff sent a notice (Ex. 2) to the defendants in terms of section 111 (g) of the Transfer of property Act saying that the defendants had forfeited the tenancy and accordingly they should vacate the land on payment of arrears of rent. In their reply dated 18-6-1965 (Ext. 3), the defendants denied their liability for eviction and set up title in themselves in regard to the disputed property. The plaintiff filed the suit on 22-9-1965. 3. The defence was claim of title in themselves and denial of the plaintiff's title in the property. It was further contended that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge at Jeypore who tried the suit came to find that the lease though genuine was invalid. He found the notice of forfeiture (Ext. The defence was claim of title in themselves and denial of the plaintiff's title in the property. It was further contended that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge at Jeypore who tried the suit came to find that the lease though genuine was invalid. He found the notice of forfeiture (Ext. 2) to have been duly served, but in view of the fact that the provisions of section 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act had no application to agricultural leases, he found the notice ineffective. Though it was found that the defendants had defaulted for three consecutive years in the matter of payment of the rent, relief was withheld on a further finding that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the suit. Upon appeal, the learned District Judge came to find that the lease Ext. 1 - was valid in law ; though section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act in terms had no application to agricultural leases, the principle applied and on such basis it must be found that there had been forfeiture. He affirmed the finding that the defendants had defaulted in the matter of payment of rent for three consecutive years. Yet on his affirming the finding that the dispute was not cognisable in the civil Court, he also affirmed the decree of dismissal. It is against this affirming decree that the plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court. 5. When this appeal came before one of us for hearing, it was referred for hearing by a larger Bench. That is how the matter is before us. 6. In view of the findings of the learned appellate Judge in favour of the plaintiff on all counts excepting jurisdiction of the civil Court, Mr. Mohapatra for the plaintiff-appellant confines his argument only to that aspect. According to him exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil Court is not to be readily inferred and it is for the defendants to show that the civil Court's jurisdiction is either expressly or impliedly ousted by some special law. The suit was instituted on 22-9-1965. By the date of institution of the suit, the Orissa Tenants Relief Act, V of 1955 was in force. The suit was instituted on 22-9-1965. By the date of institution of the suit, the Orissa Tenants Relief Act, V of 1955 was in force. The Courts below have taken the view that the relationship of landlord and tenant being admitted, section 10(1) of the said Act applied and as such, the dispute was cognizable by the revenue Court and not by the civil Court. The defendants claimed occupancy status. The plaintiff admittedly is a zeroiti tenant and his status is that of an occupancy tenant. See Zamindar of Bodokimidy v. Bhimayya AIR 1927 Mad. 76 , and D. Tatayya v. Venkatasubbarayya AIR 1928 Mad. 786 . It is well settled in law that there cannot be two sets of occupancy tenants one under the other in respect of the same land. But the defendants in terms of the lease deed-Ext. 1 had admittedly permanent and heritable right. As such their case would be coveted under the proviso to section 9 (2) of the 1955 Act. According to that proviso- ".........where the tenant has any permanent and heritable rights of cultivation in any land the steps to be taken for eviction of such tenant shall be in accordance with the law or the custom or usage having the force of law applicable to such tenancy." The Orissa Act V of 1955 was a temporary legislation. Section 2, sub-section (3) of the Act provided- "Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to confer any additional right in land on any tenant and on expiry of this Act such tenant shall possess the same right which he would have possessed if this Act had not been passed." Thus for eviction of a tenant having permanent and heritable rights, the provisions of Orissa Act V of 1955 have no application. Besides, as was indicated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Magiti Sasamal v. Pandab Bissoi 1962 S.C.D. 83, ouster of civil Court's jurisdiction was in regard to the named items of dispute in section 9 of the Act. We would accordingly accept contention of Mr. Mohapatra that in regard to entertaining the suit in question, the Orissa Tenants Relief Act did not provide any bar or exclusion so far as the civil Court is concerned. 7. Mr. We would accordingly accept contention of Mr. Mohapatra that in regard to entertaining the suit in question, the Orissa Tenants Relief Act did not provide any bar or exclusion so far as the civil Court is concerned. 7. Mr. Mohapatra next contends that in terms of the proviso to section 9(2) of the Act, steps for eviction of the defendants had to be taken in accordance with the law in force applicable to the tenancy in question. Admittedly the property being located in the district of Koraput, the normal tenancy law applicable would be the Madras Estates Land Act, I of 1908. If the provisions of that statute were to apply, a suit for eviction of the type in question would indeed not be cognisable by the civil Court. But section 19 of that Act provides : "Except as otherwise specially provided in this Act, the relations between a raiyat and his tenants, or between a land-holder and a tenant of his private land, and the rights of any other owners of land, are not regulated by the provisions of this Act." The plaintiff in this case is a raiyat ad the defendants are his tenants. As such the relationship between the plaintiff as raiyat and the defendants as tenants under him is not regulated by the Madras Estates Land Act. The law as laid down in Sreeramulu v. Rangayya Appa Row (1912) 20 M.L.J. 241, and Veerappa Chetty v. Mudali AIR 1914 Mad. 108, supports the aforesaid view. If the Madras Estates Land Act was applicable, certainly for a suit of this type, the civil Court's Jurisdiction would be ousted. But in view of our finding that section 19 of the 1908 Act excludes the application of the Act in regard to the present suit, the jurisdiction of the civil Court can not be found to have been ousted by those provisions in the Madras Estates Land Act. 8. Admittedly the dispute is one which would be cognizable by the civil Court in terms of section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless the defendants show bar of cognizance by express or implied provisions in any statute. As was indicated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of V.L.N.S. Temple v. L. Pattabhirami AIR 1967 S.C. 781 , it is for the defendants to show how cognizance is barred. As was indicated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of V.L.N.S. Temple v. L. Pattabhirami AIR 1967 S.C. 781 , it is for the defendants to show how cognizance is barred. The defendants have not shown any other bar to, civil Court's jurisdiction. In the Courts below the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act were referred to. Admittedly that Act was not in force on the date of suit. It has been found in this Court that the provisions of this Orissa Land Reforms Act are not retrospective. In view of the fact that the defendants have failed to show bar of jurisdiction of the civil Court, we must assume that the civil Court did have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the dispute in this case. As we have already indicated the claims were eviction from the property and recovery of arrears of rent. 9. Once we come to hold that the civil Court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the dispute, on the findings on other questions reached in the Courts below, which are not assailed before us, the resultant position would be that the plaintiff must have a decree for eviction of the defendants from the disputed property as also for recovery of arreas of rent. We would accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the affirming decree of the learned appellate Judge and direct that the plaintiff's suit shall stand decreed. We direct both parties to bear their own costs throughout because there was some confusion regarding jurisdiction of the civil Court and the defendants under a bona fide misapprehension raided the plea of absence of jurisdiction and the two Courts below committed the same mistake. The plaintiff shall, however, be entitled to future interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the rent decreed till recovery. B.K. Ray, J. - I agree. Final Result : Allowed