BHOMARAM Vs. SHEOKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application under sec. 10(2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance against an order of the S. D. O. Jhunjhunu dated 30-4-1955 refusing protection to the applicant under sec. 7 of the Ordinance.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. The learned lower court rejected the application solely on the ground that there being no relationship of a land-holder and tenant between the parties, who are co-tenants,protection under the Ordinance could not be granted to the applicant. This view is clearly wrong and untenable. It is highly unfortunate that though a decision of the Board reported in 1952 R.L.W. 62 (Rs.) was brought to the notice of the lower court, it brushed it aside lightly merely with the observation that it was not applicable to the present case. The learned lower court took no pains to point out as to how it was distinguishable from the present case or why it was not applicable to it. As laid down in this decision a tenant who holds land jointly with another, if dispossessed wrongfully,is entitled to be reinstated under the Ordinance WE cannot help observing that the learned lower court either failed to appreciate the decision of the Board or deliberate flouted it and in either case the result is deplorable. If the learned lower court had cared to turn a few pages of the law reporter he would have on page 68 found another case which would have given him considerable guidance on the point. In Pirbhu vs. Neem Nath (1952 RLW, Revenue Supplement 68), it was decided by the Board that a tenant would be eligible for protection of the Ordinance even if dispossession is due to some other person than the landlord. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan has also taken a similar view in R.L.W. 1954 page 259. The learned counsel for the opposite party has invited our attention to a single Member decision of the Board, reported in 1955 R.L.W. 27, (R.S.) Mula vs. Ganga Sahai, wherein it was held that a co-tenant cannot seek protection under the Ordinance and his remedy lies by way of a partition. This was examined by a Division Bench of the Board recently in Arjun vs. Kissali, 1956 R.L.W, 94 (Revenue Supplement) and it was held that the single Member decision does not lay down the law correctly. WE find ourselves in agreement with the views expressed by the Division Bench in that case. WE would, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the lower court and remand the case back to it with the direction that it be tried further and decided afresh in accordance with law