SHEISHPAL Vs. RAMSWARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE circumstances that give rise to this second appeal may briefly be stated thus. THE parties to the case belonged to, and the land in dispute is situated in village Shah-jahanpur, which prior to 26. 1. 1950 was included within the territory of the State of Punjab. During this period i. e. on 15. 11. 1949, the appellant caused a notice of ejectment to be served upon the respondent in respect of the land in dispute under sec. 43 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. As provided in sec. 45 (4) of the aforesaid Act the respondent was allowed a period of 2 months commencing from the date of service of the notice to contest his liability to ejectment. It is admitted that the respondent did not take any steps within this period to contest his liability to ejectment. On 26. 1. 1950 as a result of exchange of enclaves sponsored by the Central Government Shahjahanpur village was transferred from the State of Punjab to that of Rajasthan. THE file wherein the notice of ejectment was served upon the respondent on 15. 11. 1949 was closed by the Tehsildar Rewari on 25 2-1950 with the observation that as the notice of ejectment has been served the case be closed. On 3. 6. 1950 the appellant presented an application for execution of the "decree" dated 25 2-1950 before the Assistant Collector Behror (Rajasthan) and the same was rejected on the ground that during the continuance of the Rajasthan (Protec-tion

(2.) OF Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, no ejectment OF a tenant was permissible. This Ordinance was repealed by the enforcement OF the Rajasthan Tenancy Act on 15. 10. 55. On 17-12 1955 the appellant put up an application before the S. D. O. Behror praying therein that he had obtained a decree for ejectment against the respondent, that he bad applied for its execution on 3. 6. 1950 which was refused on account OF the conti-nuance OF the Rajasthan (Protection OF Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, and as the Ordinance, 1949, and as the Ordinance had been repealed on 15-10 55 the execution case should be revived and possession be restored to him. The S. D. O. held that there was no decree or order capable OF execution inasmuch as the appellant was bound to put up a fresh application under sec. 45 (5) OF the Punjab Tenancy Act and as he had not done anything OF the kind he cannot take out any execution proceedings. It was also observed by the S. D. O. that in view OF the provisions contained in sec. 161 OF the Rajasthan Tenancy Act no tenant can be ejected from his holding otherwise than in accordance with the provisions OF the Act and as the application, dated 17. 12. 1955 was not within the provisions OF this Act no action could be taken upon it. The appellant went up in first appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner, but met with no success. Hence this second appeal.