KHARAG SINGH Vs. BHULE RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff whose suit for declaration of occupancy rights under the provisions of the Bharatpur State Revenue Code was decreed by the S.D.O. Bharatpur, but was dismissed in appeal by the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. As laid down in sec. 131 of the Bharatpur State Revenue Code a tenant who has continuously occupied the land for 12 years without a written lease is entitled to occupancy rights. In the naqsha Kasht barah sala from Svt.1997 to Svt. 2008, the appellant has been shown as being in possession of the land in dispute as a non occupancy tenant. The defendants contested the claim on the ground that the plaintiffs' possession was in the capacity of a Supurdgar and Quabiz and not as a tenant. The trial court found as a fact that the appellant was in possession as a tenant and that the subsequent abscondence of the proprietor which led to the supardgi of the appellant did not terminate the tenancy or the tenancy rights of the appellant. He, therefore, repelled the contention put forth by the respondents. In appeal, however the learned Additional Commissioner relying upon sec. 130 of the Bharatpur State Revenue Code held that tenancy rights could not accrue in favour of the appellant. Hence this second appeal.