JIVA RAM Vs. HARHET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the defendants against the concurrent judgments of the lower courts in a case under sec. 180 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

(2.) An interesting point of law is involved for determination in this appeal. The respondent Harhet who is the recorded occupancy (now Khatedar) tenant of the land in dispute applied for ejectment against Jivaram and Ghisaram on the ground that they were admitted as sub -tenants for one year only as he (Harhet) could not cultivate the land personally by reason of blindness and physical incapacity; that after one year they did not give no the land because of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, and as the land was required for his personal cultivation, ejectment may be ordered against them. The claim was contested on the ground that it was untenable under the provision of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The trial court held that the sub -tenants were admitted for one year only and were liable to be ejected under clause (b) of sec 180 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It was contended before the trial court that an application for acquisition of Khatedari rights under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was pending, bat this, contention was overruled on the ground that Harhet was covered by sec. 46 of the Act and hence sec. 19 would become inapplicable to the case. Ejectment was, therefore, ordered in favour of Harhet. Jiva and Ghinsa appealed against this decision before the Additional Commissioner, but met with no success. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) It is manifestly clear that the lower courts have entirely failed to appreciate properly the provisions of sec. 180(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. This section lays down some additional provisions for ejectment of Khud Kasht or Ghair Khatedar tenants. These grounds are reproduced as below - -