SHAITANA Vs. RAJASTHAN BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question has been referred to this Full Bench for decision, viz. : "whether rtlief under Section 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants)Ordinance, is available to a joint tenant who is not in exclusive possession of any particular portion of the land but is jointly in possession of the whole holding along with other joint tenants?"

(2.) THE brief facts which have led to this reference, may be given here. Sedhu, who is opposite party in this court, filed an application under Section 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance (No. IX of 1949) hereinafter called the ordinance.) His case as found by the Board was that he, along with Shaitana who is the applicant in this court, were co-tenants of certain holdings and his share was half. Shaitana dispossesed Sedhu and in consequence Sedhu applied for reinstatement under Section 7. The application was opposed by Shaitana and two main points were urged on his behalf.

(3.) THE application was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Then there was a revision to the Board of Revenue and that revision was allowed. It was held by the board that as Sedhu and Shaitana were joint tenants, there was no question of limitation as the possession of one joint tenant was on behalf of the entire body of tenants. The Board further held that in view of certain decisions which had been already given by it, it was open to one joint tenant to apply under Section 7 against another joint tenant who had dispossessed him. The present appli-cation was thereupon filed in this court and the main contention of the applicant, shaitana, is that Section 7 does not apply to a case where one joint tenant is actually dispossessed by another joint tenant.