Law: Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)

Section: 77(e)

Law: [North-West' Frontier Province Tenancy Act (XXV of 1950)

Section: 49(c)

Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)-------   ---S. 77 (e)-Operates only where landlord brings suit against his tenant-Tenant by his own conduct rendering himself trespasser-Jurisdiction of, Revenue Court to hear such suit completely ousted [North-West' Frontier Province Tenancy Act (XXV of 1950), S. 49 (c)].   Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act which trenches on the usual jurisdiction of a Civil Court must be very strictly construed. Under section 77 (e) the only suits which are exclusively triable by the Revenue Court are those which are instituted by a landlord to eject a tenant. Where a person enters as a tenant-at-will, but later on refuses to vacate the property when called upon to do so, and sets up an adverse title to the landlord, there is a question of title involved in the case and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. Section 77 (e) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 only operates where a landlord brings a suit against another person, alleging him to be his tenant, but no sooner he alleges that the tenant by his own conduct has rendered himself to be a trespasser than the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court to hear such a suit is completely ousted.   162 P R 525 dissented from.   Date of hearing : 2nd March 1959.       JUDGMENT   Sarwar Shah and eight others instituted a suit for the possession of Khata No. 113, Khasra Nos. 773 and 774, measuring 95 kanals 19 marlas, against Kaloo. They alleged in the plaint that the property in dispute was shamilat-i-deh, and being proprietors in the village, they had a share in it. They further claimed that they were in exclusive possession of this property and had given it on lease to the defendant, on payment of a certain rent. Since 11 years, however, the defendant denied his relation ship of a non-occupancy tenant, and he was, therefore, since then in illegal possession thereof. The defendant, in his written statement, claimed the property to be his own, having inherited it from his father, who had made it culturable. In para. 5 of the written-statement, he said that the plaintiffs, in conspiracy with the revenue authorities, had managed to get certain entries…