DURGA Vs. MANGTU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision under sec. 10(2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, against an order of the S.D.O. Kotputli dated 22.12.1954 granting protection to the opposite -party Mangtu and Banwari under sec. 7 of the Ordinance

(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicants did not put to appearance despite notice and ordinarily the revision should have been dismissed in default. The learned counsel for the opposite -party argued that the applicants along with their counsel have absented themselves deliberately and would subsequently apply for restoration with a view to unnecessarily protracting the litigation to brass the opposite -party. The conduct of the applicants in the lower court, as can be gathered from the judgment of the lower court, was also cited in support of his contention, I, therefore, considered it desirable to examine the record in the absence of the, applicants. The grounds mentioned in the application for revision have been looked into closely. After going through the record I have absolutely no hesitation in observing that the judgment of the lower court is absolutely correct and the revision is totally devoid of substance. The salient features of the case are that the applicants are the record proprietors (biswedars) of the land in dispute; that Mst. Dhanni was the recorded occupancy tenant of this land; that Mangtu, opposite -party, is the daughters son of the deceased Mst. Dhanni; that Mst. Dhanni executed a gift deed in favour of Mangtu on 29.10.1949 which was duly registered; that Mangtu had been in possession of the land; and, that the entries in the gasht girdawari for Svt. 2007 to 2009 clearly shows Mangtu to be in possession of the land in dispute. The contention put forth by the applicants that they had been in possession of the land in dispute since a year prior to the presentation of the application is so manifestly absurd as not to deserve any serious consideration. As rightly observed by the learned S.D.O. the applicants have not been able to refuse the cogent and unassailable documentary evidence led by Mangtu. In the grounds of revision it has been stated that Mangtu cannot be the legal heir of Mst. Dhannis tenancy; and that after Dhannis death the holding should revert to the landholders. It has also been stated that Mangtu was never admitted as tenant by the landholders. All these contentions are without any substance. Sec. 18 (e) of the Jaipur Tenancy Act clearly lays down that when a female tenant, other than a tenant mentioned in sec. 17 (2) dies her interest in the holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of succession given in this section. After male lineal descendants in the male line of descent, husband, daughter -in -law, and unmarried daughter comes daughters son, It is futile to argue that in the face of this clear legal provision Mangtu cannot inherit tenancy rights from Mst. Dhanni No question of reversion to the land -holders can, therefore, possibly arise in the case. Mangtu, opposite party, had been paying rents in the past which were accepted by one of the land -holders. Two receipts, Exhibit P. 2 and Ex P. 4. have been produced in the case which bear the signatures of the Patwari and Hazari Lumberdar. It is true that mere acceptance of rent form a person in the occupation of the land does dot necessarily constitute an admission of the person paying the rent and in every case the circumstances under which the rent was accepted must be taken into account before it can be construed as an admission of tenancy. In a case where rent is accepted from the heir of the deceased tenant and no steps are taken to eject him, presumption of admission can, however, be validly drawn. Considering the entire circumstances of the case I find myself in prefect agreement with the observations of the lower court that applicants are anxious to deprive Mangtu, opposite -party, of his legal and valid tenancy rights and cannot be allowed to succeed. The revision is hereby rejected.