In Brief
A tenant challenged an eviction order obtained by alleged landlords who had purchased property from a priest (Mahant) without the authority to sell it. The tenant claimed he was the lessee of the actual owner—a religious temple. The Supreme Court held that despite statutory bars on challenging revenue court orders, the civil court retains jurisdiction when the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship is genuinely disputed. An eviction order is void if the revenue authority decided a contested question of title or relationship beyond its limited jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the principle that revenue courts cannot finally determine whether a landlord-tenant relationship exists; such disputes may be resolved in civil suits.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.