' KHALID MAHMOOD, J.--- This revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the judgment and order Dated 14-4-2010, whereby learned Additional District Judge-III, Mansehra dismissed the appeal of petitioner and maintained judgment and order passed by Civil Judge-X, Mansehra dated 19-1-2010.
2. Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding property fully described in the heading of plaint, against respondents, which was returned under Order VII, rule 10, C.P.C. On 19-1-2010 by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred appeal, which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment order. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that judgments and decrees of both the courts below are against law and facts, therefore, liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposed the contentions of petitioner and supported the impugned orders.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. It would be advantageous to reproduce subsections (vii) and (viii) of section 2 of the N.-W.F.P.
Tenancy Act, 1950, which would be convenient for just. Decision of the petition in hand.
(vii) "tenant" and "landlord" include the predecesors and successorsin-interest of a tenant and landlord, respectively;
(viii) "tenancy" means a parcel of land held by a tenant of a landlord, under one lease or one set of conditions".
7. Admittedly, Fazal-ur-Rehman. Predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 14 was tenant at will in the suit land on behalf of A the plaintiff and respondents are in possession of it in such capacity.
' According to subsection (vii) of section 2 of the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950 tenant and landlord include the predecessors and successorsin-interest of a tenant and landlord, respectively and respondents have tenancy rights in the suit land being heirs of Fazal-ur-Rehman whereas petitioner seeks declaration to the effect that after death of Fazal-urRehman respondents are not entitled to claim tenancy.
' Section 48 of N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950 provides:- "Application and proceedings cognizable by Revenue Officers .--- (1) The following applications and proceedings shall be disposed of by the Revenue Officers as such, and no Court shall take cognizance of any dispute or matter with respect to which any such application or proceeding might be made or had;--- (a)...........................................................
(b)....................................
(c ) applications under section 26, subsection (7) for the ejectment of a tenant on whom a notice of ejectment has been served and who has not instituted a suit to contest his liability to be ejected but has claimed compensation under section 43;
(d) applications by landlords for possession of land, the right of occupancy in which has become extinct; (e)
8. Relevant portion of section 49 of the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950 governing the subject-matter is reproduced for reference:- "49. Revenue Courts. And suit cognizable by them
(1) .......................................................................
(2) .......................................................................................................................
Provided that-
(1) Procedure where Revenue matter is raised in a Civil Court.---Where in a suit cognizable by a instituted in Civil Court it becomes necessary to decide any, matter which can under this sub- section be heard and determined only by a Revenue Court, Civil Court shall endorse upon the plaint the nature of the matter for decision and the particulars required by Order VII rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, and return the plaint for presentation to the Collector;
(2) On the plaint being presenting to the Collector, the Collector shall proceed to hear and determine the suit where the value thereof exceeds Rs,1000/- of the matter involved is of the nature mentioned in section 49(3), First Group of the North-West Frontier Province Tenancy Act, 1950 and in other case may send the suit to an Assistant Collector of the 1st grade for decision".
9. Thus it is crystal clear that no other Court shall take cognizance of any such dispute or matter arising out of tenancy except the revenue hierarchy. In the facts and circumstances of the case learned civil court having no jurisdiction in the matter has rightly rejected the plaint. However, the petitioner, if so advised, can seek his remedy before the revenue hierarchy.
10. In the wake of what has been discussed above, it is held that the concurrent findings of 'facts recorded by the learned Court below are unexceptionable and would, therefore, not call for interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.
11. Consequently, this revision petition being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.