Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 198 (RAJ)

Ram Prasad Sharma v. Prabhu

2015-01-21

ALOK SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. In this petition a challenge is sought to be made to the judgment dated 21.07.2014, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (hereinafter "the Board") upholding the judgment dated 16.02.2012, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur (hereinafter "RAA") affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2011, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaipur (hereinafter "SDO") whereby the respondent No.1-plaintiff-landlord's suit for eviction and permanent injunction was decreed. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent No.1- plaintiff-landlord (hereinafter "plaintiff-landlord") is the khatedar of khasra Nos.120 & 267, village Titariya, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur. The plaintiff-landlord executed a lease-deed in favour of the petitioner-defendant-tenant (hereinafter "defendant-tenant") on 16.08.2007 whereby the defendant-tenant apparently came into possession of the aforesaid khatedari land of the plaintiff-landlord for the period of five years for consideration of Rs. 5,28,000/-. It appears that the defendant-tenant however failed to pay the remainder sum of Rs. 1,53,000/- within fifteen days of the execution of the lease-deed and therefore was in breach. Consequently the plaintiff-landlord sent a registered notice dated 18.09.2007 to the defendant-tenant cancelling the lease-deed dated 16.08.2007 and requiring that the possession of the leased property be handed back to him. 3. The defendant-tenant having failed to hand back the possession of the leased property despite being in breach thereof on non-payment of remainder due consideration as per terms of the lease itself in spite of receipt of notice, the plaintiff-landlord filed a suit for eviction of the defendant-tenant and for being put back into possession of the leased property. On service of the notice, the defendant-tenant filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC asserting that the suit before the revenue court was not maintainable as it was not covered under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter "the Act of 1955") read with Schedule 3 thereof. It was the defendant-tenant's case that a breach of conditions of the lease-deed even though in respect of agricultural land and the purported cancellation thereof by the plaintiff-landlord brought the matter in dispute within the jurisdiction of the civil court and the revenue court had no jurisdiction to address the said dispute in the suit laid before it. Vide order dated 23.11.2009 the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was dismissed by the SDO. Thereafter written statement of denial was filed by the defendant-tenant. Vide order dated 23.11.2009 the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was dismissed by the SDO. Thereafter written statement of denial was filed by the defendant-tenant. Issues were framed by the SDO. On consideration of the evidence laid on the issues, the SDO found the defendant-tenant in breach of the conditions of the lease-deed dated 16.08.2007 on having failed to pay the remainder consideration thereunder within the time prescribed and concluded that the lease having been duly cancelled by a notice receipted by the defendant-tenant entitled the plaintiff-landlord to be put in possession of the property in dispute. The judgment and decree dated 23.06.2011, passed by the SDO, Jaipur was put to challenge by way of first appeal before the RAA, Jaipur which vide judgment dated 16.02.2012 affirmed the judgment of the SDO. A further second appeal by the defendant-tenant to the Board of revenue met with a similar fate under the Board's judgment dated 21.07.2014. Hence this petition. 4. The only ground agitated by Mr. Keshav Agarwal, counsel for the defendant-tenant, as the petitioner before this Court, is that the SDO as the revenue court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction and possession laid by the plaintiff-landlord. He submits that the subject matter of the suit was not covered by any of the entries in Schedule 3 of the Act of 1955 and consequently by default, the civil court with plenary jurisdiction alone had the jurisdiction to address the question of breach of condition of a contract i.e. lease-deed between the defendant-tenant and the plaintiff-landlord and grant the relief sought in the suit. 5. Mr. Prahlad Sharma, appearing for the plaintiff-landlord, as the respondent No.1 before this Court, would submit that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of fact. He submits that the writ petition does not disclose the factum of the dismissal of the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant-tenant by the SDO, Jaipur on 23.11.2009 wherein the very ground of the revenue court lacking in jurisdiction to address the suit as laid was adjudicated and rejected. He submits that the writ petition does not disclose the factum of the dismissal of the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant-tenant by the SDO, Jaipur on 23.11.2009 wherein the very ground of the revenue court lacking in jurisdiction to address the suit as laid was adjudicated and rejected. It has been submitted that the proceedings before this Court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India require the petitioner to approach the Court with clean hands and suppression of a material fact such as the dismissal of the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC by itself is sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the writ petition in limine. Counsel further submits that in any event there is no substance in the case set up by the defendant-tenant that the revenue court had no jurisdiction to address the suit for eviction and possession qua agricultural land of which the plaintiff-landlord was admittedly the khatedar. It was submitted that in terms of Section 207 of the Act of 1955 read with Schedule 3 thereof, the revenue courts have exclusive jurisdiction to address the suits of eviction and possession qua agricultural land and the jurisdiction of the civil courts in such matters is absolutely barred. 6. Heard the counsel for the parties on their respective submissions and perused the judgment dated 21.07.2014, passed by the Board. 7. In my considered opinion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of suppression of a material fact. As argued by the counsel for the defendant-tenant, the only ground on which the present writ petition is filed now sought to be agitated before this Court, is with regard to the purported lack of the revenue court's jurisdiction to address the suit for eviction and possession filed by the plaintiff-landlord qua his khatedari land. This aspect of the matter was earlier agitated by the defendant-tenant before the SDO by way of application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC and the said application was dismissed on 23.11.2009. It was incumbent upon the defendant-tenant as petitioner to bring to this Court's notice that the proceedings taken by way an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC challenging the jurisdiction of the revenue court to hear the suit as laid by the plaintiff-landlord was dismissed. It was incumbent upon the defendant-tenant as petitioner to bring to this Court's notice that the proceedings taken by way an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC challenging the jurisdiction of the revenue court to hear the suit as laid by the plaintiff-landlord was dismissed. This fact was however suppressed and the writ petition is deserving of dismissal on the ground alone. 8. Aside of the aforesaid, even on merits, a perusal of Section 207 of the Act of 1955 as also entry Nos.5, 23, 23C thereof would establish that the plaintiff-landlords suit for eviction of the defendant-tenant and the possession of the khatedari land standing to his name in the revenue record related to agricultural land in respect of which the revenue courts alone, to the exclusion of civil court, have jurisdiction. 9. I therefore find no force in the petition. 10. Dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.