HAR CHAND Vs. RAJASTHAN REVENUE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application of one Harchand under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India against a judgment of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue, dated the 8th November 1951, by which a decree of the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Deeg, was set aside regarding ejectment of the opposite party, Arami.

(2.) HARCHAND filed a suit in the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deeg, for ejectment of Arami on the allegation that Arami had failed to pay rents for his holding for which the landlord had obtained a decree and that on this ground he was liable to be ejected. The Sub-Divisional Officer accepted the argument of the petitioner and passed a decree for the ejectment of Arami. No appeal, it appears, was filed by any one of the parties to the suit against the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer. A revision application was moved by Arami in the court of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and the Board, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, quashed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. In this application it has been pleaded that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to set aside the decree passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction either under sec. 10(2) of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance or under sec. 26 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, it is said, was not made under the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance and sec. 10(2) therefore had no application to this case. Similarly, the decree passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was appealable and a second appeal lay to the Board of Revenue, and as no appeal had been filed against the decree of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Rajasthan Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction under sec. 26 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act. It is also contended that the observations of the Revenue Board regarding enunciation of the ordinary law relating to ejectment is not proper and that even under the Tenants Protection Ordinance a tenant is liable to ejectment on his failure to pay rent.