BIRBAL Vs. KHILONA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which have given rise to this application in revision are as below: - -

(2.) Birbal and others, the applicants having obtained a decree for the ejectment of the opposite party under sec. 151 of the Bharatpur State Revenue Code, applied for its execution. It was pointed out that as the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance had come in force , the said decree could not be got executed during the currency of the Ordinance. This was rejected by the Tehsildar on the ground that the Rajasthan Tenancy Act having come into force, the opposite party could not be ejected except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In appeal the learned Addl. Collector relying on R.R.D. 1957 page 106 and R.R.D. 1956 page 235 also held the same view. The applicants have now come in revision. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that a decree for ejectment having been obtained against the opposite party the tenancy rights had extinguished and the applicants were entitled to get back the land. This contention is clearly without any substance. Ejectment from a holding in accordance with the provisions of the Act i.e. by a decree or order for ejectment passed under the Act would indeed extinguish tenancy rights, but a mere decree for ejectment will not extinguish the interest of a tenant. Proceedings in execution of that decree will be necessary (Bachoo vs. Sonkali 1956 R.D. 78). Further a formal dakhal dihani even though it may not be followed by actual dispossession will extinguish the rights of a tenant. (1948 R.D. 300). In the instant case no such proceedings have yet been started and therefore it cannot be said that the tenancy rights of the opposite party extinguished soon after the decree was passed. Further as already rightly pointed out by the learned lower court, no tenant shall be ejected from his holding otherwise that in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. This rule of law has been fully discussed in R.R.D. 1957 p. 106 and R.R.D. 1956 p. 235. In this view of the matter we hold that the order given by the lower courts are correct and calls for no interference. The revision stands rejected.