OFFICIAL RECEIVER AJMER Vs. ALLA DEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision under sec. 187 of the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act, 1950 (No.XLII of 1950) has been filed against an order of the Additional Collector, Ajmer dated 24.7.57 in suit under sec. 43 of the Act whereby Alla Deen the opposite party had been declared as hereditary tenant. The simple facts of the case are that Shri Alla Deen the opposite party filed an application under sec. 43 of the Act for declaration of his status as a hereditary tenant in respect of the suit land belonging to one Natwar Lal a minor under the guardianship of the District Judge, Ajmer, and the management of the official receiver, applicant. It was stated in the plaint that the opposite party had been in cultivatory possession of the land since last ten or eleven years and paid the rent of the same to the applicant official receiver on the basis of a Thekanama. The applicant admitted the fact that the land had been given on theka to the opposite party, but denied his having acquired the status of a hereditary tenant on the ground that he was a Thekedar only for one year to whom no hereditary rights could accrue. After striking the necessary issues the Sub Divisional Officer, Ajmer came to the conclusion that on the basis of documentary evidence i.e., Khasra Girdawari for the fasli years 1959-60-61 it was proved that the opposite party had been cultivating the land as a tenant on payment of the stepulated amount of rent on the date when the said Act came in force and that he therefore, acquired the status of a hereditary tenant by virtue of the provisions of section 23 of the Act. He submitted the case to the learned Additional Collector under sec. 182 of the Act for confirmation of this order. THIS case was argued at length before the said court who also came to the same conclusion and confirmed the order given by the trial court. In revision it has been urged before us that the applicant was only a Thekedar whose Theka was renewed year to year and that such a person could not be declared as a hereditary tenant. It was also pointed out that as the land belonged to the minor the Official Receiver could not confer any such rights on the opposite party to the detriment of the minor on whose behalf he was only a custodian legis. As against this the learned counsel far the opposite party urged that the word Theka was not to be found anywhere in the Act and that the opposite party held as a tenant on the date of the commencement of the Act as defined in the act and had thus acquired the status of a hereditary tenant. In support of this contention he cited 1954 Ajmer-Merwara Law Journal, page 41 wherein the learned Chief Commissioner approving 1947 A.W.R. (Revenue) 17 held that "if the terms of 'Thekanama' expressly confine the rights of the lessee to cultivation of the land and convey no proprietory rights in it, such as that of collection of rent etc it cannot be premitted to operate to deprive the lessee of his rights as a tenant and the lessee is entitled to a declaration that he is hereditary tenant of the plots." It is admitted by the applicant that the land was given for the purposes of cultivation without, of course, transferring any proprietory rights thereon THIS being so the observation made in the decision quoted above are applicable on all fours to the facts of the present case. We are unable to find any illegality in the order given by the courts below. Accordingly we dismiss this application and confirm the orders given by the lower courts.