- (1.) THIS is an application under sec. 10 (2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, No. IX of 1949.
(2.) THE non-petitioner had been re-instated upon the land upon an application filed by him under sec. 7 of the Ordinance. THE petitioner who is the landlord then filed an application alleging that the non-petitioner had not paid him rent for three years and hence security should be taken from him before allowing him to cultivate his land. THE Assistant Collector ordered for security to be taken but the Collector Bharatpur on appeal set aside the order of the Assistant Collector as he said that there was no provision in any law for taking of security. It is against this order of the Collector that this application in revision has been filed. I have heard the parties. It is true that there is no provision for taking of security for payment of rent but under sec. 8 (4) of the Ordinance the landlord can apply to the S. D. O. for recovery of rent that might have remained unpaid after the re-instatement of the tenant upon his holding under sec. 7 of the Ordinance and the rent that had remained unpaid could be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The application filed by the petitioner should, therefore, have been treated as an application for recovery of rent and the S. D. O. should have proceeded to recover the rent after making such enquiry about the amount due from the non-petitioner. The attention of the lower courts does not seem to have been drawn to these provisions and therefore, the proceedings taken have not been according to law. I would, therefore, subject to the concurrence of my learned colleague, accept the revision petition and order that the application filed by the petitioner should be treated as an application under sec. 8 (4) for recovery of arrears of rent and should be proceeded with according to law. Shri K. S. Ranawat - 1 concur. .;