BHAIRON Vs. KAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision under sec. 10 (2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 against an order of the S.D.O., Tonk, dated 1.3.1954 refusing protection to the applicant under sec. 7 of the Ordinance.

(2.) AFTER hearing the parties and examining the record we feel no hesitation in observing that the order of the lower court cannot be upheld. On going through the order sheet we find that on 27.1.1954 the case was fixed for 10.3.54 for recording the evidence of the parties. Without sending any prior intimation to the parties the lower court appears to have visited the spot on 1.3.1954. It is alleged that the applicant applied before the lower court that if the opposite party would swear by placing their hands upon the heads of their sons they would withdraw their application presented under sec. 7 of the Ordinance. The order of the lower court says that the application has been placed on the file. We have not been able to find any such application. However, on behalf of the applicants a certified copy of the application presented on 1-3 54 has been produced before us. It refers to all the three cases which were pending before the S.D.O. It has been mentioned in this application that if the non-applicants take the special oath referred to above the cases filed by the applicants may be dismissed. In this case eleven persons were impleaded as opposite party. Only three of them-Bhura, Fata and Kama took this special oath and non else. Clearly this was not a full compliance with special oath required by the applicants to be taken in the case. All the non-applicants should have been required to take this special oath. We would, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the lower court and remain the case back to it with the direction that the; case be proceeded with further in accordance with law. The certified copy of the application presented by the applicant be placed on record.