AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
This Regular First Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Ferozepore dated 3rd November, 1976.
Briefly the facts are that Dharamshala Baba Sharan Dass was the owner of the land in dispute. It was mortgaged on behalf of Dharamshala with Balbir Singh for Rs. 26,125/ in the year 196465. Balbir Singh gave the land to the plaintiff society for a period of five years. The plaintiff gave it on lease to the defendant from kharif, 1967 to Rabi, 1971 along with 8 acres of land on rent at the rate of Rs. 18,000/ per year. After the expiry of the period, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for ejectment of the defendant and recovery of Rs. 37,500/ on account of mesne profits for the period from Kharif, 1971 to Kharif, 1972.
The suit was contested by the defendant, who inter alia, pleaded that he did not take the land on lease from the plaintiff and, therefore, he was not liable to pay any mesne profits to it. Some other pleas were also taken, but it is not necessary to refer to them while deciding the present appeal.
The learned trial Court held that the defendant took the land on lease from the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 35,000/ as mesne profits. Consequently, it passed a decree for possession of the land and recovery of Rs. 35,000/ as mesne profits against the defendant. He has come up in appeal to this Court.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that lease deed dated 30.12.1966 is an unregistered document and, therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of holding that the appellant was a tenant under the plaintiff. I have duly considered the argument but regret my inability to accept. It is well settled that an unregistered lease deed can be taken into consideration for determining the nature of the possession of the defendant under section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. Consequently, in my view, the trial Court rightly took that document into consideration and held that the appellant was tenant under the plaintiffrespondent.
It is next submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiffrespondent was for ejectment of the appellant. As there is relationship of landlord and tenant between them, therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit for ejectment. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel. Once it is held that the relationship between the parties is that of the landlord and tenant, the Civil Court cannot pass a decree for ejectment with regard to agricultural land. It is provided in section 77(3)(c) of the Punjab Tenancy Act that the suits filed by the landlord to eject the tenant are maintainable in the Revenue Court. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to order the ejectment of appellant.
The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount of mesne profits decreed in favour of the respondent is excessive, On the other hand, Mr. J.C. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent has filed cross objections to the effect that the amount of mesne profits should be enhanced to Rs. 37,500/. I have duly considered the argument of the learned counsel. The learned trial Court, on the basis of Naksha Normal Rate as prepared by the revenue authorities (Exhibit P.4), held that the value of the produce of the land relating to the above said three crops, namely, Kharif, 1971 to Kharif, 1972 is Rs. 1,06,949,96 paise. Consequently, it came to the conclusion that the landlord''s 1/3rd share came to Rs. 35,649.99 paise. However, while passing the decree, it passed a decree for Rs. 35,000/. It has to give reasons as to why the amount of mesne profits has been reduced from Rs. 35,649.99 paise to Rs. 35,000/. Once it came to the conclusion that the landlord''s share was Rs. 35,649.99 paise, there was no reason for the Court to reduce that amount to Rs. 35,000/. Consequently, the cross objections are to be accepted in part.
For the aforesaid reasons, I modify the decree of the trial Court and dismiss the suit of the plaintiff regarding ejectment of the defendant and partly accept the crossobjections and pass a decree for recovery of Rs. 35,649.99 paise in favour of the plaintiffrespondent and against the defendant. No order as to costs.