# [1966] 3 S.C.R. 474

- **Citation:** [1966] 3 S.C.R. 474
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1966-02-04
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 797 of 1963
- **Bench:** K. Sudba Rao, M. Hidayatullah, R.S. BACllAWAT
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1966-3-s-c-r-474-3571
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Madras Cu/rfraring Tenants Pror.ctiori Act, (25 of 1955), s. 6li and Code
of Ciril Procedure (Act 5 of 1908), s. 115-Deci>io11 by Reven11e Court
that petitioner wa\· not a cultjvating tenant-If revisable by Jliglr Court.
The respondent. claiming to he the cultivating tenant of the appellant.
filed an application before the Revenue Court under ""· 3 ( 3) of the
C
Madra. Culti\'&ting Tenants Protection Act, 1955, praying for a declara·
tion that the amount deposited by him in the Court represented the correct
amount of rent due from him to the appellant. The appellant denied that
the respondent was his cultivating tenant. ·rhe Revenue Court held that
the respondent was not the appellant's cultivating tenant. The High Court
in a revision petition under s. 6B of the Act read with s. 115 of th<> Civil
Procedure Code, held that the respondent was a cultivating tenant of the
appellant and that the amount deposited represented the correct amount
D
due from him to the appellant.
In appeal to this Court the appellant contended that the High Court
bad no jurisdiction, in revision. to set aside the finding of the Revenue
Court rh:H the re•pon<lcnt "V>a'i not the appellant\ cultivating tenant.
HELD : The Revenue Court under the Act can exercise its juri1die·
lion only if a relationship of landlord and cultivating tenant exists between
the contending partk.-s.
If its jurisdiction
is challenged
it must enqu:re
into the existence of the preliminary fact and decide if it has jurisdiction.
U by an erroneous decision on a question of fact or law touching its
lurisdiction a subordinate court assumes a jurisdiction not vested in it by
Jaw or fai1s to exercise a juri~diction so vested, its decision is not final
and is subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Therefore,
the High Court had power to enquire into the correctn~ss of the Revenue
Court's decisioM and on finding that the tenancy existed and that the
Revenue Court had erroneously refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested
ill it bys. 3(3), the High Court could set aside that decision
under
s. 115(b) of the Civil Procedure Code read withs. 6B of the Act. (447 H478 B; 478 D]

## Text

S. RAMA IYER
I'.
SU'.'IDARASA PONNAPOONDAR
February 4, 1966
[K. SUDBA RAO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND
R.S. BACllAWAT. JJ.)
Madras Cu/rfraring Tenants Pror.ctiori Act, (25 of 1955), s. 6li and Code
of Ciril Procedure (Act 5 of 1908), s. 115-Deci>io11 by Reven11e Court
that petitioner wa\· not a cultjvating tenant-If revisable by Jliglr Court.
The respondent. claiming to he the cultivating tenant of the appellant.
filed an application before the Revenue Court under ""· 3 ( 3) of the
C
Madra. Culti\'&ting Tenants Protection Act, 1955, praying for a declara·
tion that the amount deposited by him in the Court represented the correct
amount of rent due from him to the appellant. The appellant denied that
the respondent was his cultivating tenant. ·rhe Revenue Court held that
the respondent was not the appellant's cultivating tenant. The High Court
in a revision petition under s. 6B of the Act read with s. 115 of th<> Civil
Procedure Code, held that the respondent was a cultivating tenant of the
appellant and that the amount deposited represented the correct amount
D
due from him to the appellant.
In appeal to this Court the appellant contended that the High Court
bad no jurisdiction, in revision. to set aside the finding of the Revenue
Court rh:H the re•pon<lcnt "V>a'i not the appellant\ cultivating tenant.
HELD : The Revenue Court under the Act can exercise its juri1die·
lion only if a relationship of landlord and cultivating tenant exists between
the contending partk.-s.
If its jurisdiction
is challenged
it must enqu:re
into the existence of the preliminary fact and decide if it has jurisdiction.
U by an erroneous decision on a question of fact or law touching its
lurisdiction a subordinate court assumes a jurisdiction not vested in it by
Jaw or fai1s to exercise a juri~diction so vested, its decision is not final
and is subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Therefore,
the High Court had power to enquire into the correctn~ss of the Revenue
Court's decisioM and on finding that the tenancy existed and that the
Revenue Court had erroneously refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested
ill it bys. 3(3), the High Court could set aside that decision
under
s. 115(b) of the Civil Procedure Code read withs. 6B of the Act. (447 H478 B; 478 D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 797 of 1963.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
March 27, 1959 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No. 1282 of
1958.
R. Ganaparhy Iyer. for the appellants.
R. Thiagarajan, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B1cb1w1t, J. On April 24, 1958, the respondent claiming to
be the cultivating tenant of the appellant in respect of certain lands
in Manapparavaivattam, Nannilam Taluk deposited Rs. 462/-
E
F
G
H
. .
•
A
I
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAMA IYER v. SUNDARASA (Bachawat, J.)
4 7 5
aSrent for 1367 fasli in the Revenue Court (the Court of the Revenue
Divisional Officer), Tanjore under s. 3(3) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (Madras Act No. 25 of 1955)
and filed an application before the Court praying for a declaration
that the amount deposited represented the correct amount of rent
due from him. The appellant denied that the respondent was his
cultivating tenant. On July 31, 1958, the Revenue Court, Tanjore
held that the respondent was not a cultivating tenant of the appellant and could not claim the benefit of s. 3(3) and dismissed the
application. The respondent filed a petition in revision before the
Madras High Court under s. 6-B of the Act read with s. 115 of th~
Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court came to the conclusion
that the respondent was a cultivating tenant of the appellant and
by its order dated March 27, 1959, allowed the revision petition
and declared that the amount deposited by the respondent represented the correct amount due from him to the appellant. The appel'
!ant now appeals to this Court by special leave.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding of the
Revenue Court that the respondent was not a cultivating tenant
was a finding of fact and the High Court had no jurisdiction to set
it aside on revision. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent
submitted that the finding was in respect of a collateral fact upon
the existence of which the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court under
s. 3(3) depended and the High Court had ample power to revise
the finding under s. 6-B of the Act.
·
Section 6-B is in these terms :
"The Revenue Divisional Officer shall be deemed to be
a Court subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of
section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central)
(Act 5 of 1908), and his orders shall be liable to revision by
the High Court nnder the provisions of that section."
Section 6-B empowers the High Court to revise the decision
of the Revenue Divisional Officer under s. 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, and for the purposes of the section, the Officer is deemed
to be a subordinate Court. Section 115 is in these terms :
"The High Court may call for the record of any case
which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such
High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such
subordinate Court appears-
·
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in
it by Jaw, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested,
or
476
SUPREME COtlllT llEPORTS
(1966] 3 S.C.R.
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction
illegally or with material irregularity,
the High Court may make such order in the case as it
thinks fit.
In the present case, no question of revision under sub-s (c)
of s. 115 arises, and we are concerned only with the power of revision under sub-ss. (a) and (b) of s. 115. Sub-section (a) empowers
the High Court to correct an erroneous assumption of jurisdiction;
sub-s.(b) empowers it to correct an erroneous refusal of jurisdiction.
The decision of the subordinate Court on all questions of law and
fact not touching its jurisdiction is final and however erroneous
such a decision may be, it is not revisable under sub-ss. (a) and (b)
of s. 115. On the other hand, if by an erroneous decision on a
question of fact or law touching its jurisdiction, e.g., on a preliminary fact upon the existence of which its jurisdiction depends, the
subordinate Court assumes a jurisdiction not vested in it by law
or fails to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, its decision is not fmal,
and is subject to review by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under sub-ss. (a) and (b) of s. 1I5. The question is, on whicb
side of the line the present case lies, and whether the decision of
the Revenue Divisional Officer that the respondent is not a cultivating tenant of the appellant is subject to review by the High
Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The Revenue Divisional Officer
is an inferior Court of limited jurisdiction functioning under the
Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. To ascertain
the limit and extent of its jurisdiction, we must examine the provisions of the Act.
The Act came into force on September 27, 1955 and was amended from time to time.
Originally, the Act was temporary, recently
it has been made permanent. The Act was passed for the protection of certain cultivating tenants from eviction. Section 2 defines,
inter alia, 'cultivating tenant' and 'landlord'. 'Cultivating tenant' is
a person who carries on personal cultivation on the land under a
tenancy agreement, express or implied, and includes any person
who continues in possession of the land after determination of the
tenancy agreement and the heirs of such· person. 'Landlord'
means the person entitled to evict the cultivating tenant from his
holding or a part of it. Section 3( 1) protects the cultivating tenant
from eviction at the instance of the landlord whether in execution
of a decree or order of Court or otherwise. Section 3(2) sets out
the grounds of eviction, and if one of these grounds is made out,
the protection from eviction given bys. 3(1) is taken away. Section
3(3) enables the cultivating tenant to deposit the rent in Cou~.
Section 3(3)(b) requires the Court to "cause notice of the dep?s1t
to be issued to the landlord and determine, after a summary enquiry,
whether the amount deposited represents the correct amount of
B
c
•
D
•.
E
~·
,
G
•
\
H
A
B
c
D
•
I
E
F
'
G
l
H
RAMA IYER v. SUNDARASA (Bachawat, J.)
47?
rent due from the cultivating tenant". The expression "Court"
in s. 3(3) means the Court which passed the decree or order for
eviction, or where there is no such decree or order, the Revenue·
Divisional Officer. The Act also vests jurisdiction in the Revenue
Divisional Officer to entertain and decide an application by the
landlord for eviction of a cultivating tenant-s. 3(4), an application
by cultivating tenants evicted before and after the commencement
of the Act for restoration ofpossession-ss. 4(1) and 4(5), an application by the landlord for the resumption of land for personal
cliltivation-s. 4-A(l ), an application by the cultivating tenant for
restoration of possession from a landlord so resuming possessions. 4-A(2), applications for resumption of possession by the landlord from his cultivating tenant and by the cultivating tenant from
his sub-tenant provided the applicant was a member of the Armed
Forces-ss. 4-AA(2) and 4-AA(3). On receipt of any application·
under ss. 3(4), 4(1), 4(5),
4-A(l),
4-A(2),
4-AA(2)
and
4-AA(3), the Revenue Divisional Officer is required to hold a
summary enquiry into the matter and pass necessary orders after
giving a reasonable opportunity to the landlord and the tenant to
make their representations. Section 4-B empowers the Revenue
Divisional Officer in the case of any tenancy to impose
a penalty on the landlord or
the cultivating tenant for
his refusal to sign or failure to lodge a lease deed in accordance·
with its provisions. Section 6 provides that no Civil Court shall"
except to the extent specified in s. 3(3), have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Revenue Divisional Officer is empowered by or under the Act to determine, or shall grant an injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken under such
power. Section 6-A requires the Civil Court to transfer to the
Revenue Divisional Officer any suit for possession or injunction
in relation to any land pending before it, if it is satisfied that the
defendant is a cultivating tenant. We have already noticed s. 6-B,
which confers powers of revision on the High Court. Section T
gives the State Government the power to make rules.
The Act gives generous protection to cultivating tenants from
eviction, and severely restricts the right of landlords to resume
possession of their land from their cultivating tenants. In case
of disputes between the landlord and the cultivating tenant, the
Revenue Divisional Officer is authorised to entertain and decide
applications by the landlord for eviction and resumption of possession and by the cultivating tenant for restoration of possession and
tio impose penalties on the landlord or the tenant for infraction of
s. 4-B. To attract the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional
Officer, there must be a dispute between a landlord and cultivating
tenant. The existence of the relation of landlord and cultivating
tenant between the contending parties is the essential condition
for the assumption of jurisdiction by. the Revenue Divisional Officer
478
SUPRl!ME COUllT l.BPOl.TS
(1966] 3 S.C.R.
in all proceedings under the Act. The Tribunal can exercise it.
A
jurisdiction under the Act only if such relationship exists. If
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is challenged, it must enquire into
the existence of the preliminary fact and decide if it has jurisdiction. But its decision on the existence of this preliminary fact
is not final; such a decision is subject to review by the High Court
in its revisional jurisdiction under s. 6-B. The enquiry by the
B
Tribunal is summary, there is no provision for appeal from its
decision, and the legislature could not have intended that its decision on this preliminary fact involving a question of title would
be final and not subject to the overriding powers of revision by
the High Court.
In the present case, the Tribunal found that the respondent
was not the cultivating tenant of the appellant, and on such finding
declined to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by s. 3(3) to determine the correct amount of rent due by the respondent to the appellant. The High Court had power to enquire into the correctness
of this decision, and on tinding that the tenancy existed and the
Tribunal had erroneously refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested
in it bys. 3(3), the High Court could set aside the decision under
sub-s. (b) of s. 115 of the Code read with s. 6-B of the Act.
On
a review of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the High
Court found that the respondent was the cultivating tenant of the
appellant. It is not shown that this finding is erroneous. We
·see no reason for interfering with the decision of the High Court.
The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed. ·
c
D
I
•
•
;
\
• I
•
•