NANDA Vs. NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NANDA Ahir of Kanwarpur applied before the Anti-Ejectment Officer Jaipur against Chokha and thirteen others under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance (Hereinafter referred to as R. P. T. O.) for re-instatement with the allegations that he is a Biswedar tenant of the holding in dispute and was wrongly dispossessed by the opposite party. On behalf of the opposite party one of the ground set up in defence was that the matter related to Biswedars inter-se and as such the provisions of the R. P. T. O. had no application in the case. The Anti-Ejectment Officer vide his order dated 17. 9. 52 held that the applicant was a tenant and therefore his application was maintainable under the R. P. T. O. and directed the parties to produce their evidence. A revision has been filed against this order of the Anti-Ejectment Officer before this court.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been taken in this revision as regards its maintainability. The subject matter of this revision is an interlocutory order passed by the Anti-Ejectment Officer, Jaipur. Sec. 10 (2) of the R. P. T. O. authorises this court to call for the record of any case disposed of by the Sub-Divisional Officer or other officer of equal status under this Ordinance and to pass such order as may appear to be just and expedient. The term "case disposed of" obviously means a case decided finally and cannot be so stretched as to include interlocutory decisions as well. Sub-sec. 1 of sec. 10 of the R. P. T. O. lays down that no appeal shall lie from an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer passed under this Ordinance. This is obviously an extra-ordinary provision of law and appears to have been adopted by the Legislature in its anxiety to provide a speedy and expeditious remedy for cases covered by the Ordinance. Sub-sec. 2 provides for revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue and the term "case disposed of" exists in this provision. This term cannot be capable of any other interpretation but that the case should be decided finally before the Board of Revenue can exercise its revisional jurisdiction. A similar view was expressed in 1952 R. L. W. (Supplement Reports for Revenue) Page 4 and I find myself in perfect agreement with the same.