M.C. Desai, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by the defendants from a decree passed by an Additional Civil Judge for their ejectment from the land in dispute. The suit was brought by respondent no. 1, who claimed that he was a sub-tenant of the land in dispute and that the appellants had taken wrongful possession of it and were liable to be ejected as trespassers. It was brought in the court of a Munsif, who being of the view that the suit did not lie in a civil court, dismissed it. On appeal, the learned Additional Civil Judge held that the civil court had jurisdiction over the suit, that it did not lie in a revenue court under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and that the respondent was entitled to a decree for ejectment and passed the decree. On second appeal the matter came up before V. D. Bhargava, J. who has referred it to a Bench of two Judges.
(2.) The sole question before us is whether the suit lay in a civil court or in a revenue court. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the suit lay in a revenue court under Section 180 (1) of the U.P. Tenancy Act (and not under any other provision). There is no controversy about the law that if it did not lie under Sec. 180(1) it lay in a civil court. We have, therefore, to see whether it lay under Sec. 180(1) or not. Sec. 180(1) reads as follows:- "A person taking........possession of a plot of land without the consent of the person entitled to admit him to occupy such plot shall be liable to ejectment under this section on the suit of the person so entitled." Sub-Sec. (2) of Section 180 lays down that if no suit is brought under sub-sec. (1). "The person in possession shall become a hereditary tenant of such plot on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for such suit ....: Provided that where the person in possession can not be admitted to such plot except as sub-tenant by the person entitled to admit, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply until the interest of the person so entitled to admit is extinguished in such plot under Sec. 45(f)."
(3.) The question for decision by us is whether the respondent sub-tenant could bring a suit against the appellants for their ejectment under Section 180 (1). Since he could do so only if he was a person entitled to admit them to occupy the land in dispute, the question resolves into a question whether he was a person entitled to admit them to occupy the land in dispute. Explanation II to sub-sec. (1) provides that a tenant entitled to sublet in accordance with the provisions of the Act may maintain a suit under Section 180 (1) against a trespasser; this shows that who is entitled to admit a trespasser to occupy the land depends upon the law regarding the power to sublet. The words "entitled to admit to occupy" mean "entitled to admit a sub-tenant," if there is any existing lawful tenant-in-chief. The proviso to sub-sec. (2), which refers to the impossibility of admitting the trespasser to the land except as a sub-tenant also points in the same direction.;