- (1.) THIS is an application under sec. 10 (2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, No. IX of 1949 against an order of the S. D. O. Jodhpur dated 25. 6. 1951 by which he accepted the application presented under sec. 7 of the Ordinance by Peepla and Mangalia bhambis and ordered their reinstatement upon the field in dispute.
(2.) THE non-applicant Kishan Singh has come up in revision to this court. It is contended by him that the field in dispute is one of his chhutbhai bant and he had been cultivating it and the applicants could not apply for reinstatement under sec. 7 of the Ordinance. THE applicants claim the land as their pasaila. THEy were, therefore not tenants and they could not apply under the Ordinance. The brief facts of the case are that the bhambis of this village held certain fields as their pasaita (rent free) in lieu of the services which they used to render to the Bhomichari Jagirdars of the village. A dispute arose about the services which these bhambis used to render and the Jagirdars wanted to take possession of these pasaita fields. The bhambis approached the Govt. of the former Jodhpur State and a compromise was arrived at between the bhambis and the Jagirdars by which the Jagirdars agreed to allow the bhambis to remain in possession of these fields. The petitioner Kishan Singh, it seems, did not abide by that compromise and took over possession of the field which he claims to be a part of his chhutbhai bant. The bhambis, therefore, applied to the S. D. O. for restraining Kishan Singh from cultivating the field. Their application was sent by the S. D. O. to the Sub-Inspector of Police. But as the field had already been cultivated by Kishan Singh the Sub-Inspector reported that nothing could be done that year and the bhambis should apply next year. The bhambis thereupon submitted this application under sec. 7 of the Ordinance and prayed for re-instatement. The statements of witnesses produced by the bhambis which have been relied upon by the S. D. O. show that the bhambis were in possession of the fields and Kishan Singh had taken over possession and cultivated this field for the first time in 1950 when the rain fell in June and this application was presented on 25. 8. 1950 and cannot be said to be time barred. It is an admitted fact that the bhambis held this land as pasaita (rent free) and were not paying any rent. The point for consideration, therefore, was whether they can be considered as tenants under the Ordinance. "tenant" under the Ordinance has been defined as a person by whom rent is, or but for a contract express or implied, would be payable". The bhambis did not actually pay rent because they were rendering certain services to the Jagirdar. But otherwise they were liable to pay rent like other tenants. Therefore, they come under the definition of the term "tenant" as defined in the Ordinance and they could apply for reinstatement under sec. 7 of the Ordinance. 7. There is, therefore, no reason for interference with the order of the S. D. O. and the revision application is rejected. .;