Jeoni Vs. Kallu and ors.

act (local) no. ii of 1901 (agra tenancy act), section 198 - arrears - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as..........lower appellate court. after he had filed his defence the defendant tenant paid off the rent for the years in suit to musamtnat jannat, and musammit jannat who had been impleaded as a party later on, admitted having received the rent. the point raised before in is that the defendant not having alleged that he had paid the rent in good faith to musaramat jannat, section 198 has no application. the question whether jannat would be entitled to the rent does not arise in this case as the rent had not been paid to her before the suit was brought. musammat jeoni, the plaintiff appellant, is one of the lessees and as such is entitled to receive the rent. that section 198 does not apply to a case like the present is clear from the decision of a bench of this court in sheo dihal singh v. badri narain (1905) 7 a.l.j. 198. if that section were meant to apply to cases in which the defendant had only to allege that he was going to pay rent to a certain person in good faith there would have been no end of the litigation. he might one day say that he was willing - to pay the rent to a, whom he thought to be the person entitled to it, and in another suit by a he might plead that since then he has found that he was the real owner and that he was to pay to him in good faith. we think that the view taken by the learned judges who decided the case above mention was a correct view. the result of our observation is that the plaintiff's claim was bound to succeed. we, therefore, set aside the decrees of the courts below and decree the plaintiff's claim with costs in all courts.