Chhail Beharilal, J. - (1.) THESE are two applications in revision against the order of the S. D. O. Rajgarh (Alwar) dated the 16th July, 1952.
(2.) IN the first case No. 19, the applicants Sheodansingh and others have filed an application in revision against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer Rajgarh (Alwar Distt.) dated 16th July, 1952 reinstating the opposite party, Nathusingh on a moiety of share in field No. 328, to 343) 345, 347) 405 and 406 of village Kharkhari Tehsil Thana Gazi, under sec. 7 (2) of the Rajasthan (Protection and Tenants) Ordinance. Nathusingh, the opposite party had been holding half share of the disputed land as tenant of the applicants Sheodansingh and others since long. He applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer on 26th July, 1950 that he had been dispossessed of his holding by the land holders applicants and requested for reinstatement. The applicants defended that the opposite party had surrendered the disputed land voluntarily as the latter had taken up cultivation of some land abandoned by the Meo emigrants in village Sarwari which was situated some 20 or 24 miles away from village Kharkhari, and the latter area was available to him at rates of land revenue assessment instead of two fifth batai paid for the disputed land. The opposite party repudiated the allegation of voluntary surrender and admitted to have cultivated only 5 or 6 bighas of land in Sawari in addition to his cultivation of the disputed land. The learned S. D. O. finding that Nathusingh, the opposite party, had been wrongfully dispossessed, ordered his reinstatement. I have heard the arguments of the counsel for either party and considered the evidence on record. With regard to the first application the learned counsel for the applicant Sheodansingh and others urges on the following points : - (1) The application is barred by limitation, (2) The present application should be stayed under rule 57 of the rules made under sec. 8 of the Rajasthan Revenue courts (Porce-dure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 as a suit for recovery of possession filed by the opposite party against the applicants is already pending in appeal before the Collector, Alwar. (3) The voluntary surrender of the opposite party was proved. As regards limitation the application was submitted to the S. D. O. within the prescribed time limit of 3 months on 26th July, 1950 as the date of dispossession is 13th June, 1950 or Asadh as stated by the witnesses of the opposite party. The Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance aims at checking the growing tendency of landholders to dispossess tenants from their holdings and have provided a summary procedure so that a speedy relief might be available to the dispossessed tenants. The procedure for suits under the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 cannot grant relief in such a speedy manner. The stay of proceedings instituted under the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance in accordance with rule 51 of rules made under the Rajasthan (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 owing to a suit for recovery of possession having, been instituted will defeat the very object of the ordinance. Under sec. 3 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, the ordinance is to have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law or rule in Rajasthan. Thus proceedings instituted under Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance cannot be stayed under rule 57 which has an effect contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance aiming speedy relief to dispossessed tenants. The plea of voluntary surrender requires a careful examination and the onus of proof lies heavily on the landholder which can more effectively be discharged by production of documentary evidence. In this case no document has been produced and the circumstantial evidence adduced by the applicant about the opposite party's cultivating five or six bighas of land in a distant village at a reduced rate of rent or the expiry of a bullock or the expression of his intention to surrender before certain witnesses is not substantial to prove the voluntary surrender in the face of the fact that the tenant is complaining of wrongful dispossession and desires to be reinstated. It is not imaginable that a tenant would like, to cultivate a small area of five or six bighas of land in preference to his holding of a long standing of fifteen bighas on the temptation of some reduction in rent. This small area in spite of the favourable terms in rent can not even suffice for his livelihood. Hired labour can be procured if the tenant has no bullocks and in this case the learned counsel for the opposite party has asserted that the party carried out cultivation in village Sawari with hired labour. Thus the applicants have failed to prove voluntary surrender. I find no reason to interfere with the decision of the subordinate court and reject the application of Sheodan Singh and others in revision. As regards the second case No. 25, on the application of Nathu Singh seeking to set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 5th June, 1952 by which he cancelled his ex-parte order of 15th April, 1952 reinstating the applicant to the entire land, the Sub-Divisional Officer has not acted beyond jurisdiction and it was just and fair to allow the opposite party an opportunity to adduce his evidence. The application for cancellation of the ex-parte order dated 15th April 1952 was within the time limit of 30 days under rule 21 of the rules made under sec. 8 of the Revenue Court (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act which has to be followed in the absence of a complete procedure having been laid down under the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance and the observance of such a general procedure is essential for the ends of justice and is not conflicting with the objects and provisions of the Ordinance. A reasonable opportunity for adducing evidence has to be allowed to a party and for this the ordinary law has to be followed. This application also is, therefore, rejected and the applicant would be reinstated only on half the share of the disputed land as ordered by the Sub-Divisional Officer in accordance with the entries in Khasra Girdawari. .;