Satish Chandra Mittal, J. - (1.) FACTS giving rise to this letters patent appeal are that Mahant Bishan Dass leased out the land in question to Badri Nath who died during the pendency of the proceedings and is now represented by his legal representatives, namely, Darshan Lal and Chaman Lal. The lease was to expire in September 1958. Before that on 18th July, 1958, Mahant Bishan Doss executed another lease deed in favour of Niranjan. Singh for a period of 50 years The right, not only to recover arrears of rent from Badri Nath, but also to eject him was conferred on Niranjan Singh. On the strength of the said right, Niranjan Singh instituted a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent against Badri Nath in April 1962. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Amritsar, dismissed the suit on the ground that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between Niranjan Singh and Badri Nath. In consequence, Niranjan Singh filed a suit, seeking the same reliefs, in the civil Court The matter not being free from difficulty was referred to this Court under Section 99(1) of the Punjab Tenancy Act S.B Capoor, J. decided Reference No. 4 of 1958 Niranjan Singh v. Badri Nath on 6th February, 1964, and held that "the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit and the Revenue Court alone is competent to do so."
(2.) WHEN the matter went back to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Amritsar Badri Nath again raised an objection that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and Niranjan Singh It may be mentioned here that by Punjab Act No 18 of 1963, clause (n) of proviso to section 77 (3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act was amended to confer jurisdiction on the revenue Court to entertain suits for the recovery of arrears of rent, filed by a person to whom right to recover the same has been conferred by the landlord. As such Niranjan Singh had no difficulty in getting a decree in his favour with respect to the arrears of rent, but as regards the relief of eviction, his suit was dismissed. The appeal and revision filed by Niranjan Singh were dismissed by the Collector and Commissioner, respectively Niranjan Singh could not succeed even before the Financial Commissioner. He then filed the writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. Feeling aggrieved, this letters patent appeal has been filed by the successors in interest of Badri Nath. The learned Single Judge held that the reference above -said decided by S.B. Capoor, J., was the last word on the question of jurisdiction. Thereafter, it was not open to the revenue Court to entertain the objection. To this view of the learned Single Judge, further support is sought by the learned counsel for Niranjan Singh by the mandatory provisions of section 99 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Subsection (3) of section 99 lays down: - - The order of the High Court on any such reference shall be conclusive as against persons who are not parties to the suit as well as against persons who are parties thereto. In view of the above, there can be no two opinions that the revenue Court was debarred from entertaining the objection as to jurisdiction on any ground.
(3.) IN the result, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. 6. I agree.;