Wanchoo, C. J. - (1.) THIS is a reference by the Munsif of Rajsamand under sec. 40 (1) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act. (No. 1) of 1951, and has arisen in the following circumstances.
(2.) A suit was filed before the Munsif by Bhawani Shanker for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. A temporary injunction was issued, and there was some question in the trial court whether that Description of suit or application. 2 "for an injunction or for the repair or damage or waste or for compensation when the landholder, does not sue for ejectment. " The contention behalf of the defendants was that on a plain reading of this entry any suit for injunction relating to agricultural land must be filed in the revenue court. There is undoubtedly some scope for misconception on this point, and the argument on behalf of the defendants in the munsif's court was based on this misconception. But a close scrutiny of items 8 and 9 of Group B of the First Schedule would clearly show that these two items are connected. Item 8 relates to the ejectment of a tenant or sub-tenant for detrimental act or omission or breach of condition. Item 9 is an alternative remedy to the landholder where he does not wish to eject the tenant or subtenant for detrimental act or omission a condition. In such a case it is open to the landlord to sue the tenant or the sub-tenant for an injunction or for repair of the damage or waste or for compensation. This is made clear by the words "when the landholder does not sue for ejectment" appearing in item 9. A perusal of the U. P. Tenancy Act also, in my opinion, leads to the same conclusion. In that Act there are two provisions. Sec. 172 provides that a tenant shall be liable to ejectment from his holding on the suit of the landholder on the ground of any act or omission detrimental to the land, or on the ground that he has broken a condition, etc. Then sec. 174 provides for an alternative remedy to the landholder who instead of suing for ejectment may sue for compensation or for injunction, or for repair of the damage or waste. There are two entries in Group A of the Fourth Schedule of the U. P. Tenancy Act at Nos. 7 and 8, the first being for ejectment of the tenant, and the second for an injunction, or for the repair of damage or waste or for compensation. The legal position is perfectly clear in the U. P. Tenancy Act injunction had been disobeyed. When that matter came up for consideration, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the defendants that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit at as the suit was covered by item 9, Group B of the First Schedule to the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act (No. I of 1951 ). The Munsif was doubtful on this point and has consequently made a reference to this Court. Item No. 9 is as follows: - Time from which period begins to run. 4 "when the damage is done or the waste begins or condition is broken. " because the section of the Act is also mentioned in the schedule. In Rajasthan, however, as there was no unified Tenancy Act at the time when Act No. I of 1951 was passed, there is no mention of any section of any Act against this entry. But it is clear from a perusal of the U. P. Act, and from a close scrutiny of items 8 and 9 of Group B, and from the words 'when the landholder does not sue for ejectment under item 9 that this item only applies to cases where a landholder wants to sue a tenant or sub-tenant on account of any detrimental act or omission or condition, but wants to limit his remedy to injunction or repair of damage or waste, or compensation and does not want to proceed to the length of ejectment. This will also be clear from column 4 whether the words are - "when the damage is done or the waste begins, or the condition is broken" These things will only arise in the case of acts detrimental to the holding or breach of condition on which the holding is held. In this connection may refer to Lala vs. Sujansingh (1) where a learned Single Judge held a suit for permanent injunction by a plaintiff in pos-session restraining the defendant from inter-fering in the plaintiff's possession is triable by a civil court. This was held on a reference from the revenue court, and though item 9 of Group B has not been specifically considered, the result, to which the learned Judge arrived, is the same at which I have arrived. The pre-sent suit is not by a landholder against a tenant or sub-tenant. It is by a muafidar in possession against trespassers for an injunction only. In there circumstances, the suit properly lies in the civil court. Let this answer be returned to the Munsif concerned. .;