1. This is a civil revision petition against the order of the learned Additional District Munsif of Coimbatore, dismissing the petition filed by the plaintiff for stay under Ss. 10 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. The suit, O. S. No. 1304 of 1975 was instituted by the Civil Revision Petitioner for a declaration that he is a cultivating tenant and for an injunction restraining the defendant Devasthanam from interfering with the alleged possession. The respondent, who is the defendant in the suit, is contesting the suit inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff is not in possession and is not a cultivating tenant. Pending disposal of the suit, the Civil Revision Petitioner has applied to the Tenancy Record Officer for entering his name in the Tenaney Record Register as the cultivating tenant in respect of the suit lands. His name was recorded as a tenant in respect of the suit property. Thereupon, the respondent Devasthanam filed A.P 39/73, and the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Tenancy Record Officer and remanded the matter for fresh disposal, So T.R 93/72, the application filed by the Civil Revision Petitioner, has been restored to file and is said to be pending enquiry. Pending disposal of this petition, the plaintiff has filed a petition under S. 10, C.P.C, for stay of O. S. No. 1304/73 aforesaid suit contending that the Record Officer alone has jurisdiction to give a finding as to whether or not he is a cultivating tenant, and that therefore, the civil court should await the finding of the Record Officer. The respondent-Devasthanam opposed this application. The learned Additional District Munsif held that S. 10 C.P.C, applies only when more than one proceeding are pending in Civil Courts, that the Tenancy Record Officer is not a Civil Court, that a proceeding before the Tenancy Record Officer is not a suit and that, therefore, S. 10; C.P.C, is not applicable to this case. He further held that though the Civil Court cannot set aside the order of the Record Officer, it can give an independent finding as regards possession, and that hence the suit aeed not be stayed till the disposal of T. R. 93/72. Aggrieved by his decision of the learned Additional District Munsif, the plaintiff has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
2. In Muniyandi v. Rajangam Iyer . 1976 I M.L.J 344=89 L.W 249. a Bench of this Court, to whieh I was party, has laid down that S. 16-A of Act X of 1969 admits of no doubt that a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide any matter which the Record Officer, District Collector, or other officer or authority empowered by or under the Act should determine, and that the Civil Court is forbidden from granting injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by such officer or other authority in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act. By reason of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act the Tenancy Record Officer is the proper authority for deciding whether or not the Civil Revision Petitioner is a cultivating tenant and for entering his name as a cultivating tenant in the Tenancy Record Register. The Civil Revision Petitioner will not be entitled to an injunction merely on the ground of possession. He has also to establish that he has a legal right to be in possession viz. that he is a cultivating tenant whose possession is protected under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. Therefore, it is necessary for him to establish in the suit not merely that he is in possession, but also that he it also a cultivating tenant. This he can do only if his name is duly entered in the Tenancy Records Register. He has, therefore, rightly applied to the Tenants Records Officer to record him as a tenant in respect of the suit property. Until this application is finally disposed of it is not in the interests of justice that the suit should be tried and disposed of. In fact, without a finding as to whether the the plaintiff has any legal right to continue in possession, an injunction cannot be granted to the plaintiff, even if he proves that he is in possession. Apart from the provisions of S. 10, C.P.C, the Civil Court has ample jurisdiction under S. 151, C.P.C, to exercise its discretion and grant a stay in order to meet the ends of justice. The comity of Courts will have to be observed by Civil Courts even though the connected proceedings are pending in a forum which cannot be strictly called a Court, let alone a Civil Court.
3. In Aravan Servai v. Kamugan Servai 1. 1958 II M.L.J 505=71 L.W 53. and others P. N. Ramaswami, J., has observed that:
“It is obvious under S. 10, C P.C, that the Civil Courts and the Revenue Courts are not rivals trying to obtain custom. On the other hand, the comity of Courts will be observed by both of them If there are pending proceedings in a Civil Court where a prima facie decision has been given that the relationship of landlord and cultivating tenant does not exist and the opposite party rushes to the Revenue Court in order to obtain a decision to the contrary, the Revenue Divisional Officer will hold his hand and await the decision of the Civil Court. The moment the civil Court finds that the relationship of landlord and cultivating tenant exists it will transfer the proceedings. The moment it is found that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist the Revenue Divisional Officer must respect the finding of the Civil Court and dismiss the application before himself. In the same way. If there are pending proceeding before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the opposite party runs to the civil Court, a civil court will stay its hands and await the decision whether the relationship of landlord and cultivating tenant exists, and, if the answer is in the affirmative and the remedies asked for before it are those which can be granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Civil Court will not proceed with the suit. On the other hand, if the Revenue Divisional Officer finds that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist or that the reliefs asked for before him are not those which can be granted by him it will be open to the Civil Court to proceed. In other words, each must respect the jurisdiction of the other, and as I have said, both these Courts are Subordinate to the High Court and are not rivals going out and securing the highways and bye-ways touting as it were for custom. On the other hand both will be governed by the salutary principles laid down in S. 10, C.P.C”
4. I respectfully agree with the observations above. It would have been in the interests of justice if the learned District Munsif himself had stayed the suit pending the decision of the Tenancy Record Officer, for, that would have finally settled the controversy as to whether the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant or not. If the plaintiff it not a cultivating tenant even though he may be in possession, he is not entitled to an injunction. Therefore, it is in the interests of justice that the trial of the suit should be stayed pending the disposal of the application by the plaintiff.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent wants some safeguard to be made for securing the income from the properties. The defendant is at liberty to move the trial court by means of a separate application for such relief as may be necessary, to secure the income from the suit land during the pendency of the suit. Hence the Civil Revision Petition it allowed, and the stay under S. 10, C.P.C is granted pending disposal of the application of the Civil Revisional Petitioner in T. R. 93/72 on the file of the Tenancy Records Officer, Coimbatore. No costs.
VCS