Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Nandu Mahton vs Bholu Mathton And Anr. on 13 November, 1929

Balkrishna Nanda And Anr. vs Ramchandra Bhuyan And Anr. on 25 April, 1949

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.
Orissa High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1