' This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10-6-1989 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat accepted the respondents' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14-10-1987 by virtue of which the learned Civil Judge, Kharian, had decreed the petitioner's suit for possession of agricultural land against the predecessor of the respondents.
2. The relevant facts which gave rise to the present revision petition are that on 18-5-1983 Muhammad Malik petitioner instituted a suit against Muhammad Hussain, the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents, for the possession of 8 kanals of agricultural land (fully detailed in para.1 of the plaint). He alleged that during Rabi 1983 Muhammad Hussain aforesaid took over the suit land from him as a tenant and started cultivating it on payment of Batai but later on he not only refused to pay the said Batai but also denied the title of the petitioner. He (Muhammad Hussain) was asked to admit the title of the petitioner and hand over the possession of the suit land but he refused, as a result of which the petitioner had to institute the present suit,
3. In his written statement Muhammad Hussain the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents denied the title of the petitioner in the suit land and also controverted the assertion that he was in possession of the said land as a tenant under the petitioner. He maintained that he was in possession of the land as owner on the basis of registered sale-deed dated 17-8-1977 executed by one Shahalu in his favour. He also raised a number of legal objections touching upon the jurisdiciton of the Court and maintainability of the suit in its present form etc.
4. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land and is entitled to its possession? OPP
(2) Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit? OPD
(3) Whether this suit does not lie? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
(5) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD
(6) Relief.
' The parties adduced their evidence on the above issues. After considering the said evidence the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14-10-1987 decreed the suit finding all the issues in favour of the petitioner and against the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents instituted an appeal because, in the meanwhile, their predecessor Muhammad Hussain had died. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the said appeal vide judgment and decree dated 10-6-1989, holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge in favour of the petitioner were set aside.
6. In this revision the petitioner has questioned the legality of the decision given by the learned lower appellate Court.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also gone through the material available on record.
8. The respondents had contended before the learned lower appellate Court that as the suit for possession had been instituted against the tenants of agricultural land the jurisdiction to entertain and try such suit vested exclusively in the Revenue Courts and the Civil Courts had no jurisdiciton in the matter. This argument, which was wholly misconceived, found favour with the appellate Court as a result of which the appeal was accepted.
9. Perusal of the pleadings of the parties would abundantly show that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not admitted. The petitioner in his plaint had categorically asserted that the respondents' predecessor had not only refused to pay Batai to him but had also denied his title. In the written statement also the predecessor of the respondents clearly denied having cultivated the suit land as a tenant under the petitioner. Contrary to the petitioner's claim, he set up the plea that he was in possession as an owner and co-sharer in the Khata. In this view of the matter, by no stretch of imagination it could be said that the suit had been instituted on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant.
10. It is an established principle of law that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts would be ousted only if it were an agreed position between the parties that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between them. As this relationship, admittedly, is non-existent in the present case th%e Civil Courts will have jurisdiction to try and hear this case. Reliance in this regard is placed on Sardar Khan and 2 others v. Raja Khan and another 1981 SCM R 863 and Intzamia Committee, Gurdwara Ramsar Manji Sahib v. Mani Ram AIR 1940 Lah.
154.
11. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge is not sustainable in law. Consequently, I accept this revision petition and set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court. As the learned Additional District Judge had disposed of the appeal on the question of jurisdiction only and had not disposed it of on merits, I remand the appeal to him for decision on merits.
12. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Gujrat on 15-5-1990 who shall either hear the appeal himself or entrust it to some other Additional District Judge in the district for expeditious disposal.
13. Costs of the revision are also allowed to the petitioner.