HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, whose suit for recovery of possession over the land in dispute was dismissed by the trial court, the first appellate court upholding the same in first appeal.
(2.) THE only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that, as the respondents claimed to be the tenants of the land in dispute and denied to be sub-tenants under the plaintiff they should be deemed liable to ejectment. A reference has been made to sec. III (g) (ii) of the Transfer of Property Act which provides that a lease of immovable property determines in case the lessee renounces his character as such by claiming title in himself. Much need not be said on the point. In the first place as laid down in sec. 117 of the said Act, these provisions are not applicable to leases for agricultural purposes. Secondly the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has clearly stated before us that now the respondents do not claim for themselves any other status but that of sub-tenants under the plaintiff who is tenant of the land in dispute. On going through the written statement filed in the trial court by the respondents we find that their plea was to the effect that they were the tenants of the land in dispute and if in the alternative the trial court found that the plaintiff had the title with them then in that case also the defendants were not liable to ejectment as laid down in sec. 4 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance. THE learned counsel for the appellant has conceded before us that in case the respondents are held to be sub-tenants the suit will not be maintainable during the continuance of the Ordinance. Looking to the circumstances of the case and the clear admission of the respondents themselves it is clear to our mind that the respondents have no other status but that of sub-tenants in the present case and hence the orders of the lower courts directing dismissal of the suit during the continuance of the Ordinance calls for no interference. THE appeal is hereby rejected.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.