Nandi Manjhi vs Dwarka Nath Dubey

Adami, J.—A suit was brought by a raiyat against the appellant asserting that the appellant was his under-raiyat whose lease had expired and he sought to eject him. The suit was instituted in the court of the Munsif of Raghunathpur. The learned Munsif found that the suit was not maintainable in the civil Court having regard to the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, and therefore, the suit was dismissed.

On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge had disagreed with the Munsif and has held that the suit was maintainable in the civil Court on the ground that the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act contained no provision for the ejectment of an under-tenant, and therefore, the provisions of Section 139 Clause (4) and Section 139-A would not apply to the case.

Against this decision the present second appeal has been lodged. In the case of Madhab Poddar Vs. Lall Singh Bhumij, this Court has already dealt with and decided an exactly similar case, and it has been held in a judgment of my own that in a suit for the ejectment of an under-tenant, the plaintiff must seek his remedy by application or suit before the deputy Commissioner and that such a suit is not maintainable in the civil court.

It is unnecessary to repeat the graunds on which that decision was arrived at; they will be found in that judgment.

The result is that the decision of the lower appellate Court must be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff must stand dismissed the appellant will get his costs in both the Courts.

Allanson, J.

I agree.