UMDIRAM Vs. RAMDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this second appeal are that Udmiram appellant brought a suit against Ramdev respondent with the allegations that he was a Khatedar tenant of Khasra No. 298 in village Benar, that this land was let by him to the respondent in Smt. year 2010 for a fixed period of three years; that the respondent failed to pay rent for Smt. years 2012 and 2013 and that he had also refused to vacate the land. The appellant sought the relief of the ejectment of the respondent and also a decree in the amount of Rs. 69/ - for the purpose of rent. The learned trial court after taking evidence decreed the suit in favour of the appellant. In the first appeal preferred by the present respondent before the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, the decree of the trial court was modified to this extent that the amount of Rs. 69/ - for the purpose of rent. The learned trial court after taking evidence decreed the suit in favour of the appellant. In the first appeal preferred by the present respondent before the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, the decree of the trial court was modified to this extent that the amount of Rs. 69/ - held to be payable by the present respondent was reduced to Rs. 40/4/ -. The learned Additional Commissioner held that the present respondent was not a trespasser and could not be ejected as such, and that the only remedy open to the present appellant was under sec. 180 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. When the present appellant brought this second appeal, the case was referred to the Full Bench for an authoritative pronouncement whether a person holding under a lease for a fixed period was a tenant or a trespasser in the event of his retaining possession after the expiry of the stipulated period. The Full Bench held that a tenant continues to be a tenant on the expiry of the lease and cannot be termed as a trespasser for the purpose of ejectment. In view of this pronouncement the appellant applied for permission to amend his plaint so that the respondent may be ejected under sec. 180(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Alternatively, he prayed that the relief under sec. 180(b) of the said Act be granted to him under sec. 209 of the Act. The amendment applied for was not granted but it was decided that the prayer for relief under sec. 209, of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act should be considered. The parties were directed to produce evidence for or against the proposition that the respondent had become a khatedar tenant of the suit land by virtue of his being a sub -tenant of the appellant as provided under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The aforesaid evidence -was asked for so as to satisfy this court that as a sub -tenant the respondent fulfilled the conditions laid down for the acquisition of the khatedari rights under sec. 19 of the said Act. The counsel for the respondent has produced a certified copy of the khasra Girdawari Record for Smt. years 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. In this record the following entry occurs in column 16 under the year 2011.

(2.) Every tenant of Khudkasht or subtenant referred to in clause(b) of sub -sec.(1) claiming that the rights mentioned in that sub -section accrued to him on the appointed date in the whole or any part of his holding shall, within two years of that date and on payment of a court -fee of twenty -five nP. apply to the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction, praying for a declaration that such rights accrued to him as aforesaid, and the provisions of sub -sec. (5) of sec. 15 shall apply to such application and such tenant of Khudkasht or sub -tenant shall not be regarded to have become the Khatedar tenant of his holding of part, as the case may be, until he has obtained the declaration so prayed for.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the Khasra Girdawari record produced by the respondent does not in terms describe the respondent as a sub -tenant and that as such the respondent cannot claim khatedari right under sec. 19(l)(a) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. His argument is that this provision of the law has to be strictly interpreted and that there should be a clear entry in the annual registers describing the status of the respondent as a sub -tenant. According to him, a mere entry of the name of the respondent in column 16 of the Girdawari record without any description of his status as a sub -tenant is not enough to satisfy the condition laid down for the acquisition of the khatedari right under sec. 19(i) (a). In support of his contention he has relied on a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported at page 284 of Revenue Decisions. In that case, it was claimed that the appellant should be held to be an occupant of certain agricultural lands in terms of sec. 22(b) of the U.P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act. That provision referred to a person recorded as an occupant. The entry in the Revenue Record did not in terms describe the appellant as an occupant. It was held that the relevant provision had to be strictly interpreted and that this provision did not recognise an implied entry or an entry which did not describe a person as an occupant, but which may imply that he was one. We respectfully agree with this ruling and are of the opinion that in order to derive benefit from sec. 19(i)(a) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act it is essential for the respondent to show that there is an entry in the annual registers describing him as a sub -tenant. The entry that has been produced before us does not describe the respondent as a sub -tenant. Therefore, this entry does not avail him for the purpose of acquisition of Khatedari rights. In the alternative it was open to the respondent to obtain a declaration of Khatedari rights in terms of sec. 19(2) of the Tenancy Act which he has not shown to have been done within the period of limitation prescribed therein. Therefore, it must be held that the respondent has not acquired any khatedari right in the suit land. As a subtenant not having acquired khatedari rights, the respondent is liable to ejectment under sec. 180(b) of the Tenancy Act. We therefore, accept this appeal and modify the decree given by the lower court to the extent that the respondent shall be ejected and his ejectment given effect to subject to the restriction imposed by sec. 184(i) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.