Randhir Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for revision under Section 276 of the U.P. Tenancy Act arising out of a suit for a declaration under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act.
(2.) IT appears that the suit which has given rise to this application for revision was instituted by the Plaintiff against five persons for a declaration that the Defendants 1 to 3, who held out to be tenants of the landlords -Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 were not the tenants of the land in dispute and that the Plaintiff was the tenant of the land. The suit was contested and one of the grounds taken up in defence was that the suit was not within the cognizance of the Revenue Court. This plea found with the Assistant Collector and he directed the plaint to be returned to the Plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The Plaintiff then went up in appeal. The learned District Judge who heard the appeal, however, came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Assistant Collector was incorrect and that the suit was within the cognizance of the Revenue Court. The Defendant has now come up in revision under Section 276 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. A perusal of the plaint shows that the Plaintiff had asked for a declaration against all the Defendants that he was a tenant of the land in dispute and that the Defendants 1 to 3 were not tenants. It has been argued on behalf of the applicants that the suit was primarily against Defendants 1 to 3 and no allegations had been made against the landlords, who were Defendants 4 and 5, that they had also admitted Defendants 1 to 3 to the tenancy of the land. Reliance has been placed on a ruling of the Allahabad High Court reported in Pheru Ahir v. Mangru Gandaria, 1950 A.W.R. (H.C.) 573. In this reported case it appears that a suit was instituted on the civil court and a plea was raised by the Defendant in that suit that the suit was cognizable by the Revenue Court and as such should not have been instituted in the Civil Court. It is not clear from the report of the case as to whether the landlords were parties to that suit, but it seems that the landlords were no party to that suit and it was a suit primarily against the Defendants who had forcibly ejected the Plaintiff. Under those circumstances it was held that the suit was within the cognizance of the Civil Court. In the present case the landlords have been made parties and a declaration of the Plaintiff's right as a tenant has been asked for against all the Defendants, including the landlords. In the prayer clause also the Plaintiff asked for the relief of declaration against all the Defendants. It cannot, therefore, be said that the suit was not one under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. The evident object of the Plaintiff was to get a declaration binding upon the landlords and the persons claiming to be tenants and not only against Defendants 1 to 3 who claimed to be tenants. The Defendants 4 and 5 did not enter appearance nor did they come forward to state that they had not admitted Defendants 1 to 3 to tenancy. The case was on the face of it one covered by Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and as such was cognizable by the Revenue Court. The view taken by the lower appellate Court was, therefore, correct and there is no force in the contention raised on behalf of the applicant.
(3.) NO other point arises for determination. The application, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs to the opposite party.;