- (1.) THIS is plaintiff's ap peal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession over a house and for arrears of rent and manse profits. The trial Court dec reed the suit, but on appeal the decree was set aside and the suit was dismissed. It wax dismissed as barred by limitation.
(2.) THE facts of the case are, that the house originally belonged to Chunni and Naubat, they sold it on 23- 8-1927 to Prem Raj and subsequently his sons Piarey Lal and Sri Rama sold it to the plaintiff on 25-8- 1958. The present suit was filed in 1958. The case of the plaintiffs was that Chunni and Naubat after the sale had continued to occupy the house as tenants of the vendee Prem Raj and in 1943 Naubat had execut ed a rent note hi respect of the house and subsequently the claim for rent was also decreed by Nyaya Panchayat on the basis of a compromise. The defence on the other hand was that the relationship of landlord and tenant had never existed, the alleged rent note of 1943 was a forged document and the decree of the Nyaya Panchayat was a nullity as the Nyaya Panchayat had no jurisdiction in the matter and the compro mise was never entered into by the defendant. The suit was also said to be barred by limitation. The trial Court believed the plain tiff's case and decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court after a reconsideration of the evidence on record held that the rela tionship of landlord and tenant between the parties never came into existence and that the rent note of 5-6- 1943 was a forged document and had not been executed by Naubat. About the Nyaya Panchayat's dec ree, it held that the compromise had not been signed by the defendant and that the Nyaya Panchayat had no jurisdiction to pass the decree for rent in respect of the house. It also did not accept the palintiff's case that the defendant never remained in possession of the property as tenant of the plaintiffs or then- vendors. On these findings, the court below held that the suit was barred by limi tation under Art. 136 of the Indian Limita tion Act, 1908. Learned counsel for the appel lants contended that the Article of the Limi tation Act, 1908 applicable to the facts of the case was Article 144 and not Article 136. The contention is that as the plaintiffs had treated the defendant as a tenant and had filed a suit after terminating the tenancy, no Article other than Article 144 of the Li mitation Act was applicable. This conten tion is based on a misconstruction of the plaintiffs' pleadings. The suit was filed not on the basis of the contract of tenancy but on the basis of title. The plaintiffs had come to Court on the allegation that the defendant having denied his title and having no right to continue in possession was liable to eject ment. The suit was thus a simple suit for possession based on title, against a person holding the house without title and not a suit by a landlord for the ejectment of a tenant whose tenancy had been terminated by a notice to quit. Further, on the finding of the Court below about the non-existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs or his vendors and the defendant, the suit of the plaintiffs would be maintainable only as a suit by a person alleging himself to be the owner of the pro perty against a trespasser having no legal right to hold the same.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appel lants also made a faint attempt to argue that the finding of the Court below that the decree of the Nyaya Panchayat was of no effect, was erroneous in law, but was unable to show how the Nyaya Panchayat was en titled to pass such a decree. Besides the dec ree being passed on a compromise which has been proved to have not been entered into by the party concerned, the Nyaya Pan chayat had no jurisdiction to pass the dec ree by reason of Section 66 read with Sec tion 64 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. Section 64 (1) (a) permits the taking cogniz ance of any civil case of the following des cription only: "a civil case for money due on contract other than a contract in respect of immov able property. Any money due as rent of immovable pro perty would be money due on a contract of lease and accordingly on a contract in res pect of immovable property and the suit for the recovery of the same could not lie in the Nyaya Panchayat, The view of the lower appellate Court that the decree of the Nyaya Panchayat in the circumstances aforesaid, was of no consequence for prov ing the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties cannot be said to suffer from any error of law. ;