- (1.)THIS is a revision under sec. 10(2) - Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, against an order of the S.D.O. Pratapgarh, dated 16-8-54 refusing protection to the applicant under sec. 7 of the Ordinance.
(2.)THE opposite party did not put in appearance despite notice before us and hence the case was heard ex parte. THE applicant based his claim for reinstatement on the ground that he had been in possession as a mortgagee of tenancy rights and that he was dispossessed wrongfully. THE opposite party in his written statement took up the plea that as the relationships between the parties was not of a landlord and tenant and as the applicant was merely a mortgagee, he could not be granted any relief under the Ordinance. THE trial court without recording the evidence of the parties dismissed the application on this preliminary ground. A reference has been made to a decision of the Board in case No. 36 Nagore of Svt. 2010 decided on 17-6-54 Panna vs. Sakat Singh. This is a single bench decision by one of us. THE trial court has not properly appreciated the real import of this decision. THE main point involved in that case was as to whether a document purporting to be a mortgage-deed was inadmissible or not for want of registration and whether the applicant enjoyed the status of a tenant. After a consideration of the evidence it was held that no mortgage of tenancy rights stood proved in that case. Besides, this point was examined by both of us in Case No. 22/Tonk, Svt. 2009, decided on 9th Sept., 1953, reported in 1954 R. L.W. (Rev. Sup.). It was held therein that a mortgagee of tenancy rights is a tenant within the meaning of the Ordinance and can claim protection afforded by it. Obviously the decision of the lower court was given in ignorance of this Division Bench ruling on the point. We would, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the lower court and remand the case back to it with the direction that it be proceeded further and decided afresh in accordance with law.