BARAD SINGH Vs. MOHANDAS
LAWS(RAJ)-1955-10-20
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on October 13,1955

BARAD SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
MOHANDAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is a revision application under sec. 10(2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, against an order of the S.D.O. Mandaligarh, dated 18-5-1955 granting protection to the opposite party under sec. 7 of the Ordinance.
(2.) WE have heard (he learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well. Leaving aside the merits of the case we are of the opinion that this revision ought to succeed on the point of limitation. As provided in sec 7(1) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, any tenant who is dispossessed after the commencement of this Ordinance in contravention of the provisions thereof may, within three months from the date of such ejectment or dispossession apply to the Sub-Divisional Officer or officer of equal status for his re-instatement. This provision, therefore, lays down two ingredients. The first is that the dispossessed tenant should apply to the S.D.O., and the other is that this application should be presented within three months of the dispossession. In the present case it is an admitted fact that the alleged dispossession of the opposite party took place in Asadh, Svt. 2011, corresponding to June-July, 1954. The proceedings in the case commenced upon an application presented by the opposite party before the Collector Bhilwara on 16-2-54 1954, i.e. about 4 or 5 months prior to dispossession. In this application it was stated that the opposite party was being threatened with dispossession and the Collector was requested to make appropriate arrangements in that respect. The Collector forwarded this application to the S.D.O. who in turn transmitted it to the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar by his order dated 25-8-1954 returned the papers to the S.D.O. with the remarks that as the opposite party had been actually dispossessed in the month of Asadh, action under the Ordinance may be taken by the S.D.O., The papers were received in the S.D.O's office on 31-8-1954. On a suggestion of the office the Tehsil was asked to supply the date of dispossession. The Tehsildar replied on 18-9-1954 that it was not possible to ascertain the actual date of dispossession which took place in the month of Asadh. Thereupon the case was registered in the court of the S.D.O and parties were directed to appear on 4-11-1954. On this date the opposite party appeared before the S.D.O. The applicant was also present. The S.D.O. appears to have examined the parties then and framed issues. Thus a reference to the record makes it perfectly clear that the first application made by the opposite party before the S.D.O. as regards this dispossession was on 4th November, 1954. The dispossession is alleged to have taken place in the month of Asadh. Svt. 2011, which according to the Rajasthan Government Calendar commenced on 17-6-1954 and ended on 15-7-1954. The application, therefore, becomes clearly barred by three months limitation. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party relied upon a decision of the Boand reported in RRD 1954,p.34(1954 RLW(R.S.)123).The facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from those of the present one.In that case it was found as a fact that the tenant presented himself before the Collector and made some application before him and it was in consequence of that application the Collector sent telegraphic instructions to the Tehsildar concerned.It was held in that case that the application even if it was made verbally amounted to a sufficient compliance within the meaning of 7(1)of the Ordinance. In the present case aspain-ted out above the first application regarding dispossession was made on 4-11-1954 and that is clearly beyond 90 days of limitation. The lower court, therefore, had on jurisdiction to grant any protection to the opposite party on this account. We would,therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the lower court and direct that the application for reinstatement presented before it by the opposite party shall rejected on the point of limitation alone.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.