H.D. Ujjwal - (1.) - This is an application by Parbu under sec. 10 (2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 against an order, dated 28.2.1952 of the S.D.O., Jetaran, rejecting his application under sec. 7 of the R.P.T.O.
(2.) ALLEGATION of the applicant Parbu was that he was cultivating well Sukha-ki-Dhumri in village Bagiara which was a patta village of Thikana Raipur. Thikana asked him to leave this well and showed him another well Lumbda-ki-Baori for cultivation. He cultivated Lumbda-ki-Baori for about 5 years. After harvesting the Unhalu crop of Smt. 2005 Thikana asked him to cultivate Sukha-ki-Dhumri, again. So he left Lumbda-ki-Baori and started cultivation on Sukha-ki-Dhumri from Smt. 2006. J He cultivated Sukha-ki-Dhumri in the Kharif season of Smt. 2005 and the Rabi of Smt. 2006 but on 9.6.1950 the non-applicants and the Thikana dispossessed him and would not allow him to cultivate the land. Non-applicants' reply was that the applicant had never cultivated the disputed well Sukha-ki-Dhumri during the last 15 years. They had only allowed the applicant to cultivate as their shikmi tenant for one crop only in the previous year after that the applicant never cultivated this well and was cultivating another well Khatiyawala. The S.D.O. held that the possession of the applicant upon the well Sukha-ki-Dhumri had not been proved from 1st April, 1948 and as he was not dispossessed by the landlord, he could not apply under sec. 7 of the R.P.T.O. for reinstatement. The S.D.O. had also not believed the oral evidence produced by the applicant and had rejected the application. It is urged on behalf of the applicant that according to the amendment to the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance of 1952, it was not necessary to prove that the tenant was in possession of the land in dispute on 1.4.48. Tenants who were in possession even after that date were also entitled to protection under R.P.T.O. and they could also be reinstated. Secondly the learned S.D.O. had taken a wrong view of the law. The tenant who might have been ejected not by the landlord but by other person at the instance of the landlord was entitled to be reinstated under the R.P.T.O. and it was not necessary that the tenant should be dispossessed by the landlord for applying for reinstatement under the R.P.T.O. It is further urged that the learned S.D.O. had wrongly discarded the evidence of the applicant both oral and documentary. I see force in the arguments of the applicant. According to the amendment to R.P.T.O. recently made all tenants who were in possession of land on 1.4.48 or afterwards are entitled to reinstatement if they are unlawfully dispossessed. Further it has been held by the Board in several cases that dispossession need not be by the landlord. Even if a tenant is dispossessed by any person other than the landlord, he is entitled to reinstatement. The S.D.O. had clearly taken an erroneous view of the law. As regards evidence it is in the first instance admitted by the non-applicants that the applicant had cultivated this well as their shikmi tenant in one season. Further the applicant had produced a receipt given by the Thikana on 18.10.49 regarding the payment of Rs. 35/- by the applicant in respect of this well. It is true that although the heading of the receipt is 'Ticket for Kunta' in the body of the receipt it is written that the receipt was for the price of grass. Even if the applicant had taken grass from this well he should have been considered to be in occupation of this land. It has not been shown whether the non-applicants cultivated this well and were given any receipt. The applicant had produced 5 witnesses who all supported the allegation made by him. The non-applicants had also produced 5 witnesses but their evidence is not supported by any documentary evidence. Secondly none of the witnesses stated that the applicant had cultivated this well as shikmi tenant in Smt. 2006 when it is admitted by the non-applicants themselves. This shows that the witnesses are so partial to the non-applicants that they do not wish to state the fact which is in favour of the applicant and is admitted by the non-applicants themselves. The S.D.O. thus took a wrong view of the law and also of the evidence produced by the applicant. In the circumstances, I would, with the concurrence of my learned colleague accept the revision application and set aside the order of the S.D.O. and order that the applicant be reinstated upon the well Sukha-ki-Dhumri in village Bagiara. ;