The Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to decide disputes between a landlord and a tenant regarding the tenant's possession of land on 1-9-1947 and his rights to the benefits under the Orissa Tenants Protection Act, 1948, as such disputes are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 7 (1) (a) of the Act.

NARASIMHAM, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendants' appeal against the appellate judgment of the Additional district Judge of Berhampur reversing the judgment of the Additional Munsif of berhampur and decreeing the plaintiff's suit for a permanent injunction against the appellants-defendants.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is the owner of about 18i acres of land in three villages, Phulta, burukuddi and Dasapore, in Berhampur taluk. He alleged that the lands were all along in his personal cultivation and that the defendants had neither any right to those lands nor were they ever cultivating them as his tenants: according to the plaintiff the defendants were mostly coolies, without any property, and being rowdies by nature they wanted to lay claim to the disputed lands as tenants taking advantages of the provisions of the Orissa Tenants protection Act. In the plaint it was admitted that the defendants had served registered notice on the plaintiff intimating that they would cut and remove the crops on a date specified in the notice claiming themselves to be the tenants of the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore apprehended that the defendants would forcibly remove the crops and brought the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering upon the suit lands and for consequential reliefs.

( 3 ) THE plaint was filed on 3-12-1948. The written statement of the defendants was filed on 20-12-1948 and therein they allege that they were the tenants in actual cultivation of the disputed lands and that the plaintiff was only a landlord entitled to realise rent as determined by law. They, further stated that every year they used to execute muchalikas in respect of the disputed lands but that the plaintiff had completely suppressed them. They also stated that they were in possession of the disputed lands, as tenants, long before 1-9-1947 and that they continued in possession even after that date and that, consequently, they were entitled to remain in possession under the provisions of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act. In para 8 of the written statement it was further alleged that the defendants apprehended that the plaintiff would attempt to interfere with their possession and that on 1-11-1948 they applied to the Sub-Collector of Berhampur and also to the district Collector, at Chatrapur for redress and, as advised by those officers, they subsequently filed petitions under the Orissa Tenants Protection Act before the sub-Collector of Berhampur. In para 9 of the written statement it was further stated that the defendants were always ready and willing to pay Rajabhagam, as provided in that Act, to the plaintiff that they got the crops appraised by respectable people, after giving registered notice to the plaintiff on 28-11-1948. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit was also challenged on the ground that in view of the provisions of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act the suit was cognizable only by the revenue Court.

( 4 ) THE Orissa Tenants Protection Act, 1948 (Orissa Act 3 of 1948), which is an important measure of tenancy reform, was brought in force on 14-2-1948. The main object of that enactment was to give temporary protection from eviction to actual tillers of the soil and the expression 'tenant' was therefore given a wide definition (See Section 2 (g) of the Act) so as to include Bhagachassis who may be cultivating the lands even of a ryot as tenants. Section 3 (1) of that Act conferred freedom from eviction, on those persons who, on 1-9-1947, were cultivating any land as tenants. That section further stated that: "it shall not be lawful for the landlord to evict such a tenant from his land or to interfere in any way with the tenant's cultivation of his land. " for the purpose of this appeal it is unnecessary to consider why the Legislature fixed 1-9-1947 as the relevant date for conferring freedom from eviction on certain classes of tenants. Section 7 (1) of the Act conferred exclusive jurisdiction on t