Kishan Puri - (1.) THIS is an application in revision against the order of the Assistant Collector, Bayana dated 1.7.52 accepting the application of respondent Pheli under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance.
(2.) THE facts of the case, briefly, are that Pheli presented an application before the Assistant Collector Bayana on 10.6.52 alleging that he was in cultivatory possession of khasra Nos. 1283 and 1296 from which he was being dispossessed by Ghisa the land holder. He prayed for protection to be given to him under the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance. The case was ordered to be put up after two days and notices were issued for the appearance of Ghisa, opposite party, in the lower court. When the case came up for hearing on 12.6.52 the notice issued for the appearance of Ghisa was received back with the report that he was not present in the village. The case was adjourned to 25.6.52 and was ordered to be put up at camp Weir. At this hearing the notice issued to Ghisa was received with the process server's report that Ghisa was the sole occupant of the house and as he was away from the village it could not be known as to when he would return to the village. It was further reported, that the notice could not be pasted on the house as it was closed. The case was adjourned to 1.7.52 and the process server's report on the notice on this date was on the same pattern as the last one. The Assistant Collector then took ex parte proceedings against Ghisa and accepting the application of Pheli ordered restoration of his possession over the land in dispute. The respondent Pheli is not present in spite of notices and this revision application is being heard ex parte. The applicant's main contention is that the Assistant Collector ordered ex parte proceedings to be taken against him improperly and that the application of Pheli was accepted without an iota of evidence having been produced by him in support of his claim. I have gone through the record and regret very much to note that the Assistant Collector acted in a very arbitrary and un-judicious manner in disposing of this case. I have had in the past occasions to pass strictures on the disposal of cases under the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance by this officer. When the process server's report was to the effect that the notice could not be served on Ghisa or pasted on his house, it was altogether wrong on the part of the Assistant Collector to have recorded as his personal opinion that Ghisa was evading his appearance in the court. No Presiding Officer of a court can ignore the provisions of the law and act on his own personal knowledge. Further when ex parte proceedings are taken, the court is supposed to record some evidence in support of a claim before decreeing the suit. It is strange that the application of Pheli was accepted even without recording his statement on oath. It would appear from the perusal of the first application filed by Pheli under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance that no specific allegation of dispossession from the land in dispute was made therein. The wordings used are that the opposite party, namely, the landlord was intending to eject him. No application under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance can be accepted unless the applicants's cultivatory possession over the land in dispute and his ejectment therefrom is sufficiently established. The date or period of ejectment is very important because limitation for presenting the application under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance begins to run from the date of ejectment. It was the duty of the Assistant Collector in this case to have carefully examined the applicant's claim before ordering restoration of his possession, particularly, when ex parte proceedings were being taken against the opposite party. The proceedings under the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance are of a summary nature but that does not mean that the court should dispense with the statement of the parties or deprive the non-applicant the opportunity of contesting the case on the supposition that the party was trying to prolong the proceedings as observed by the lower court in this case. It is also no use fixing up a case to come up only two days after the presentation of the application, particularly, when the notices were to be served in a tehsil which was away from the headquarters. Even if the notices had been served, the party would hardly have any time to take legal advise and submit the written statement etc. within one day's time. It is good to expedite disposal of cases but such injudicious haste cannot be over looked, as it clearly operates hard on the opposite party. The failure of the Assistant Collector to observe the procedure cannot be too strongly condemed. Subject to the concurrence of my learned colleague, I would accept the revision application, set aside the order of the lower court and remand the case for fresh enquiry and disposal according to law.;