- (1.) The Chunian Pursharthi Cooperative Multipurposes Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Society) took the land of respondents Nos. 15 to 17 in village Samana Bahu, District Karnal, on lease from Kharif 1949 to Rabi 1959 on annual lease of Rs. 12,000/-. In 1959 the lease was extended for another five years. After the expiry of the extended period, the owners did not agree to extend the permit of lease for any fixed period. They allegedly agreed that the Society will remain in possession of the land on payment of annual lease money of Rs. 19,000/-. In 1952 the Society began giving different parcels of land to different tenants. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 14 are such tenants of the Society to whom the land was sub leased. After 1964, the sub-lessees stopped paying Batai to the Society on the plea that the possession of the Society had become as that of a trespasser and it was not landlord for purposes of recovering Batai from them. According to the Society the landowners (respondents Nos. 15 to 17) received annual lease money of Rs. 19,000/- from it regularly. In 1966 some of the sub-lessees, who are not parties to this litigation, filed an inter-pleaded suit, alleging that the Society as also the landowners were claiming Batai from them. That suit was decided in favour of the Society on 7th February, 1974. The landowners filed appeal which was dismissed on Ist December, 1976.
(2.) The Society filed suits against sub-lessees (petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 14) which were dismissed by the Revenue Courts upto the Commissioner on the ground that after the expiry of the extended term of original lease, the Society had ceased to be a tenant under the landowners and consequently, a landlord qua the sub-lessees. The Society then filed revision before the Financial Commissioner, who vide order dated the 5th February, 1976, directed the sub-lessees to deposit the amount of rent due from them in the Revenue Court and further directed the Society to file a civil suit, seeking declaration to the effect that it was entitled to recover Batai from the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 14. The Society filed a suit for declaration that it was entitled to recover Batai from the sub-lessees for different periods detailed in the complaint and the land-owners (respondents Nos. 15 to 17) were not entitled to recover it from the sub-lessees (petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 14) so long as they (the landowners) did not eject it from the suit land in due course of law.
(3.) The sub-lessees (petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 14) contested the suit and raised objections that one suit against all of them could not be maintained, the suit was time barred and that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try it.;