Dharam Vir Sehgal, J. - (1.) The question that comes up for consideration in this regular second appeal is whether an order duly passed by an Assistant Collector, First Grade, on an application filed under Ss. 14 -A(i) and 9(i)(vi) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) seeking ejectment of his tenant on the ground that he has sub -let the land comprising the tenancy, which undoubtedly renders both the tenant and the sub -tenant liable to ejectment under Sec. 9(1)(vi) of the Act, after giving proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the effected parties, can legally be permitted to be challenged in the Civil Court by the sub -tenants in view of the provision of Sec. 25 of the Act.
(2.) The facts, in brief, are that suit land measuring 15 kanals 10 marlas situated in village Meharbanpura, district Amritsar is owned by Baldev Singh and others Defendant -Appellants. Karnail Singh Defendant -Respondent No. 3 was in cultivating possession of the same as a tenant under them. According to the landlords. Karnail Singh had sub -let the said agricultural land to Gurnam Singh Plaintiff -Respondent. Bishan Dass and Jassa Singh Defendant -Respondents Nos. 2 and 4. They accordingly filed an application for ejectment of Karnail Singh as tenant and the alleged sub -tenants under Ss. 14 -A(1) of the Act on the ground of their sub -letting as available under Sec. 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The tenant as also the subtenants including the Plaintiff in their defence before the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Amritsar took up the stand that they are the owners of the suit land by adverse possession. They denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the landlords and Karnail Singh as tenant. The allegation of sub -letting was also denied. After a full dressed trial the Assistant Collector. First Grade, Amritsar vide his order dated 26 -7 -1971 Ex. D2 held that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the landlord and Karnail Singh stood established. Sub -letting of the land by the latter in favour of the alleged sub tenants including Gurnam Singh, Plaintiff -Respondent, was also held to be proved: he consequently passed an order of ejectment against all of them. Karnail Singh tenant as also Gurnam Singh Plaintiff who was one of the alleged sub -tenants, filed an appeal before the Collector, Amritsar which, however, failed and was dismissed vide his order dated 18 -8 -1972 Ex. D3. The Plaintiff, thereon, filed the instant suit claiming that he was the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession, that a question of title was necessarily involved and as such the Assistant Collector, First Grade and for that matter the Collector, had jurisdiction to pass the orders Exs. D. 3. The Defendant -Appellants in their written statement contested the Plaintiff's claim and inter -alia took the defence that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit bringing into question the orders Ex. 2 and Ex. 3 passed under the Act by the competent authorities. The learned trial Court framed as many as 8 issues, but in the present appeal we are concerned with issue No. 1 only which was to the following effect: - Whether Civil Court has jurisdiction to try this suit? OPP." The learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Amritsar held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred by Sec. 25 of the Act and besides returning a finding against the Plaintiff on merits, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 5 -8 -1976. The Plaintiff thereon filed an appeal which was however, allowed by the learned Senior Sub Judge with Enhanced Appellate Powers, Amritsar vide his judgment and decree dated 9 -5 -1977. The finding of the trial Court on the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court was reversed and it was held that since the Plaintiff and Karnail Singh had raised a question of title and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, the Assistant Collector, First Grade and the Collector ought to have stayed their hands and the parties should have been relegated to the Civil Court to have the question of title determined. Aggrieved thereby, the Defendants filed the present regular second appeal in this Court.
(3.) I have heard Mr. H. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate for the Appellants. In my view the learned Senior Sub Judge seriously erred in reversing the well considered finding of the learned trial Court whereby it was rightly held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of Respondent No. 1. When a landlord files an application under Sec. 14 -A(1) of the Act against an alleged tenant for ejectment, it is for the Assistant Collector. First Grade who is the competent authority under the Act to determine whether or not there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. If he comes to the conclusion that such a relationship is established, he assumes jurisdiction and is thus competent to pass order under the Act. An order passed under the Act cannot be called in question in any Court or before any authority except in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as provided by Sec. 25 thereof. Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 chose to challenge the order of the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade Ex. D2 in accordance with the provisions of the Act by filing an appeal before the Collector which was, however, dismissed vide order Ex D3. Respondent No. 1, thereafter could not turn round and file the instant suit in the Civil Court which indubitably had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. It is well -settled that once a Court or an authority has jurisdiction then it is entitled to decide the matter before it, both rightly or wrongly. Merely because the order may be assailable on merits is no warrant for holding that thereby the same becomes devoid of inherent jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the matter is expressly barred by Sec. 25 of the Act. Respondent No. 1 could not invoke its jurisdiction under the cover of a contention that he had raised a question of title before the Assistant Collector, First Grade.;