BALVEER SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer dated August 28, 1972.

(2.) THE petitioner filed a suit for possession Under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on October 4, 1958 in the court of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Phalodi, alleging that agricultural lands comprised in Khasra Nov 62 and 62/1, including the Pipalia well situated in village Kotra, Tehsil Osian District Jodhpur was under the tenancy of the plaintiffs, who held a 'Bapi Patta' dated December 4, 1942 in respect of the aforesaid agricultural lands, including the Pipalia well. Defendant Bhura was allowed by means of an agreement dated September 12, 1950, produced in the court of the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur, to continue to remain in possession of the agricultural lands in question as a sub -tenant thereof for a period of two years. The plaintiffs alleged that after the expiry of the aforesaid period of two years, they were unable to obtain possession of the agricultural lands in dispute from Bhura because of the promulgation of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance. According to the plaintiffs, Bhura was holding possession of the lands in dispute since Jeth Sudi 15, Samvat 2006 as a trespasser and without authority of law and it was asserted that the plaintiffs were entitled to obtain possession of the lands in question from Bhura Under Section 183 of the Act. In his written -statement, filed on October 25, 1950, defendant Bhura denied the execution of the alleged agreement dated September 12, 1950 and stated that he was in possession over the agricultural lands in dispute as a khatedar tenant thereof. It was also stated on behalf of Bhura that in case the plaintiffs considered him to be a sub -tenant, then a suit for eviction Under Section 180 should have been brought and not one Under Section 183 of the Act Bhura also asserted that an application for a declaration that he was the khatedar tenant of the lands in dispute was filed by him before the Assistant Collector, Phalodi and the same was pending in that court.

(3.) THE Sub -Divisional Officer, Phalodi, by his judgment daetd April 3, 1967 held that the execution by the parties of the, agreement dated September 12, 1950 was proved. He also held that after the expiry of the period of two years, Bhura defendant became a tenant holding over from year to year and he could not be considered to be a trespasser The Sub -Divisional Officer, therefore, passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant Bhura for possession Under Section 180(1)(b) of the Act and the plaintiffs were also held entitled to get rent at the rate of double the agreed yearly rent, in respect of the agricultural holding in dispute.