- (1.) THIS is an application in revision against the order of the Anti Ejectment officer, Bayana dated 6. 9. 52 accepting the application of Moti under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance.
(2.) MOTI filed an application on 21. 8. 52 and the court ordered notices to be issued to the opposite party for the next hearing fixed for 5. 8. 52. On this date out of eight persons against whom the application was presented by MOTI and to whom notices were issued, only Inder Raj appeared and presented an application on 6. 9. 52 stating that he apprehended that justice would not be done to him by Shri Nathi Singh and therefore he would move an application for the transfer of the case. The Anti Ejectment Officer ordered ex parte proceedings to be taken against all the seven respondents in the lower court and rejected the application put in by Inder Raj for stay of proceedings. The applicant's main contention in this revision application is that the Anti Ejectment Officer acted in an injudicious manner in not allowing even one opportunity to Inder Raj for moving the Revenue Board for transfer of the case and decided the case against him on almost no evidence. It is further pointed out that an omnibus notice was issued summoning all the eight respondents in the lower court and a serious irregularity was thereby committed. Attention has also been drawn to another irregularity committed by the Anti Ejectment Officer in not taking up the case on 5. 9. 52 and adjourning it to the following day without proper notice to the opposite party. I have heard the parties' counsel and gone through the record of the case. I consider that an opportunity should have been given to Inder Raj for moving an application for transfer of the case in the Board of Revenue. The Anti Ejectment Officer's solicitude for the tenants can be understood but there was no harm in giving a short period adjournment as requested by Inder Raj. The rejection of this prayer out-right and decision of the case then and there deprived the opposite-party of an opportunity even of filing its written statement. In other words the Anti Ejectment Officer passed ex parte orders even against Inder Raj who had appeared before him. The proceedings under the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance are no doubt, of a summary nature but some regard has to be paid to legal procedure and the Sub-divisional Officers and Anti Ejectment Officers are expected to exercise discretion in a proper and judicious manner. Even when ex parte proceedings are taken it is the duty of the presiding officer to see that the applicant who comes forward to seek protection produced some evidence to establish his cultivatory possession over the land in dispute and his forcible ejectment therefrom. It would appear that the applicant was not even examined on oath by the Anti Ejectment Officer and there was thus not the least evidence on the file to establish that he had been forcibly ejected from the land in dispute. I have time and again pointed out that the disposal of cases under the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance in this manner;, instead of helping the tenants results in much avoidable trouble and Expenditure to them. 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. Chailbehari Lal - I concur. .;