SITARAM Vs. MANGIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition has been preferred against the order of the Board of Revenue dateds 31-12-60 whereby Sarva Shri Shyamlal and R. N. Hawa accepted the appeal against the judgment and decree of the Collector, Sawai Madhopur dated 21 -6 -50 upholding the decision of the trial court dated 18-4-49 and ordered that the application presented by the respondents (now applicants before us) for ejectment shall stand rejected throughout.

(2.) The circumstances leading to the aforesaid appeal have been briefly recited in the impugned order as follows:

(3.) A preliminary objection was raised for the respondents that as there was no provision for the revival of appeals in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act the Board had no authority to re -hear it. This contention was held to be untenable by the D. B. It was observed that under sec. 5 of the repealed Ordinance, the appeal was consigned temporarily and that by no stretch of imagination it was to be treated as a final determination of the matter. With the repeal of the Ordinance, it was observed, the appeal could not be allowed to remain consigned and hence it must be decided in accordance with law. The same contention has again been repeated before us through this review petition. It has been urged that as there was no specific provision in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, which repealed the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance, an appeal consigned to records could not be revived. The wording of sec. 5 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance is very clear. By virtue of this all suits, appeals, revisions, applications etc. for the ejectment of tenants were temporarily consigned to record. Obviously, temporary consignment would only mean suspension of the contest for the time being but not its final determination. The purpose of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance was to put a check on the growing tendency of land -holders to ejector dispossess tenants from their holdings and in the wider national interest of increasing the production of food -grains to make provision for their protection from ejectment. Sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance relates to the power of its withdrawal and sec. 14 relates to the application of sec. 6 of the General Glauses Act. The Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance was enacted to remain in force for a period of 7 years but before the expiry of that period it was repealed by the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of 15 -10 -55. Under sec. 206(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act all suits, cases, appeals, etc. relating to matters dealt with in this Act and pending before a Revenue Court, oncoming into force of this Act were deemed to have been commenced under this Act. Therefore, proceedings under the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance pending before a revenue court were automatically to be dealt with under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. As the present appeal had only been temporarily consigned to record under sec. 5 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, it could not be deemed to have died. It must consequently be held to have been pending before a revenue court on the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and we do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned members of the Division Bench who heard the appeal committed an error apparent on the face of it in hearing the appeal.