JUDGMENT
Dawson Miller, C.J.
1. The only question for determination in this appeal is whether the learned Subordinate Judge was right upon the facts found in the case in arriving at the conclusion that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit.
2. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs as proprietors against the defendants a tenants or rather as the persons who had been in possession of the lard as tenants under a three years’ lease and whose lease had expired, to eject them from the land, Other defendants who it was alleged had been put in by the first defendant as their tenants were also made patties but they disclaimed all interest in the property and they need not; therefore, be any longer considered. The case put forward by the plaintiffs was that the defendants’ lease having expired they ware trespassers and, therefore, could be ejected.
3. Various defences were raised and amongst others the defendants contended that they had been in occupation of this lard many years before the lease and were in fact occupancy raiyats. The plaintiffs on the other hand contended that their right under the lease was merely that of tenure-holders and that they had no raiyati right at all.
4. The learned Munsif decided in favour, of the plaintiffs. He came to the conclusion that the evidence of the defendants as to occupation of the land before the lease in question could not be accepted, that they had in fact been cultivating some of this land before that period under what is known as an utakar lease which rave them no rights of occupancy and that the land granted under the lease of three years, which bad expired, could not be identified with the land of which the defendants had previously been in possession.
5. When the case came before the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal, although he agreed with the facts as found by the Munsif as to what had previously taken place, on considering the terms of the lease under which the defendants had been admittedly in possession for three years and somewhat longer period to the Institution of the suit, was of opinion that the defendants’ lights, under the lease, were the rights of a raiyat, that is to say the right of taking the laid into their own cultivation and not the rights of a tenure-holder or thikadar granted for the purpose of putting others in possession of the land in order to cultivate it. He refers to the terms of the lease and if his reference is accurate as one must presume it is, because the lease has not been produced in this Court so as to challenge it, then there can be no doubt that the learned Judge was light in coming to the conclusion that the interest of the defendants was that of raiyats, arid although they had acquired no occupancy title they were in fact non-occupancy raiyats On reference to the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act it appeared to the learned Subordinate Judge that a suit to eject a tenant of agricultural lard or to cancel any lease of agricultural land was not cognizable by the Civil Court because under Section 339 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act it is, provided, inter alia, that suits of the nature which I have just mentioned:
Shall be cognizable by the Deputy Commissioner, and shall be instituted and triad or heard under the provisions of this Act, and shall not be cognizable in any other Court, except as otherwise provided in this Act.
6. The Act further provides machinery for trying cases of that sort before the Deputy Commissioner with certain powers or appeal to his superior officer. Moreover the grounds upon which a non-occupancy raiyat shall be liable to ejectment are set out in Section 41 and other places in the Act. A special procedure is provided for trying cases of that sort and it is only by the Tribunals, prescribed in the fact that such a suit can be tried. Having arrived at that conclusion, as the leaned Subordinate Judge did, it seems to me that he was bound to dismiss the suit. The suit as framed, was one to eject trespassers, but on the facts found the defendants were not trespassers but non-occupancy raiyats. As no suit to eject non-occupancy raiyats could be tried in the Civil Court the question of the plaintiffs’ lights against them court rot be determined in the present suit. The learned Judge should have contended himself with dismissing the suit but he ordered the plain t to be returned for presentation in the proper Court. This could not be done as the suit was not framed as one for the ejectment of raiyats. It was nevertheless rightly dismissed and in that respect his decree should be affirmed. Subject to this modification of the Subordinate Judge’s order the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents who hive appeared.
Poster, J.
7. I agree.
