A tribunal of limited jurisdiction cannot have unlimited power to determine the limit and to assume jurisdiction or, in other words, it cannot usurp jurisdiction on a wrong decision relating to jurisdictional facts.

Sahai, J.

1. The only question which requires consideration in this case is whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the correctness of the finding of the House Controller in a case for eviction of a tenant under Section II of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties.

2. The facts, relevant for decision of this case, are as follows. Mahabir (defendant No. 8) inducted the plaintiff as a monthly tenant in the house in suit in 1945. He filed an application before (he House Controller for eviction of the plaintiff; but the controller rejected the application by an order dated the 7th September, 1949. The defendants-first-party are descendants of defendant No. 8 by his first wife. There was a partition suit between the defendants inter se which was decreed on compromise. The house in question fell, according to the compromise, in the share of the defendants-first-party, who filed an application under Section II of the Act for eviction of the plaintiff on two grounds, viz., (1) non-payment of rent and (2) personal necessity. The Controller rejected this application; but the Collector allowed it on the ground of personal necessity. The plaintiff then instituted a suit for declaration that the decree passed in the partition suit was collusive and fraudulent, and that the Collectors order for ejectment of the plaintiff, which was confirmed by the Commissioner, was void, inoperative and without jurisdiction as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the defendants-first-party.

3. The Munsif, who tried the suit, held that the decree in the suit for partition between the defendants was fraudulent and collusive, and that the order of eviction of the plaintiff passed by the Collector and confirmed by the Commissioner relating to the house in suit was void, without jurisdiction and ineffective in law. On these findings, he decreed the suit.

4. The appeal filed by the defendants-first- party was heard by the 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarpur. He has held that it was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the House Control Court to decide whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and to pass an order of eviction if such relationship exists. He has further held that section 18 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to review the order of eviction passed by the Collector. Without deciding the case on merits, therefore, he has allowed the appeal, and dismissed the suit.

5. The plaintiff has filed the present second appeal. It was placed for hearing before a Division Bench which has referred it to this Bench as it took the view that there was a conflict between two Bench decisions of this Court, viz., Baijnath Sao V/s. Ram Prasad, AIR 1951 Pat 529 and an unreported decision in Maheshwari Prasad Narain Sahi V/s. The Rupak Ltd., Civil Revn. No. 600 of 1955, disposed of on 18-10-1955.

6. I do not think that the problem presents any difficulty. It is well settled that, unless the legislature expressly confers upon a tribunal of Limited jurisdiction the exclusive power to decide facts upon which it can assume jurisdiction to do a certain act or to pass a certain type of order, it has no jurisdiction to decide those preliminary or jurisdictional facts finally. While it has necessarily to come to its own conclusions on those facts in order to exercise its jurisdiction relating to matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, its decision on those facts is liable to be challenged in the Civil Court. A tribunal of limited jurisdiction cannot have unlimited power to determine the limit and to assume jurisdiction or, in other words, it cannot usurp jurisdiction on a wrong decision relating to jurisdictional facts. These principles have been discussed in a Full Bench decision of this Court in Patna Municipal Corporati