Wanchoo, C.J. - (1.) The following point has been referred to the Full Bench for answer : "Whether the protection afforded by Section 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants Ordinance, 1949, is also available in case of dispossession of a person in occupation of the holding on or after the 1st day of April, 1948, as tenant as defined in the Ordinance when such dispossession is made by a person other than the landholder, e.g. a trespasser?"
(2.) Section 7(1) of the Ordinance, as amended up-to-date, reads as follows : "Any tenant who being in occupation of his holding on or after the first day of April, 1948, has thereafter been ejected therefrom, or dispossessed thereof or from or any part thereof- (a) before the commencement of this Ordinance, otherwise than by process of law, or (b) after the commencement of this Ordinance in contravention of the provisions thereof, may, within three months from the date of such ejectment or dispossession or the commencement of this Ordinance, whichever happens to be later, apply to the Sub-Divisional Officer or other Officer of equal status for his reinstatement in such holding or part as the case may be." This section, as it stands, does not specify who the person ejecting should be before a tenant can take advantage of it. It is, however, urged that the scheme of the Act is to afford protection to tenants from ejectment by landholders, and though the language of Section 7(1) may be wide, we should put in the words 'by his landholder after the words 'any part thereof in order to carry out the intention of the legislature. We have, therefore, to look at the scheme of the Act and see whether it was the intention, of the legislature to restrict Section 7(1) to ejectments by land-holders only, or whether the intention was what is conveyed by the very wide words used in the section.
(3.) The Ordinance was enacted "to provide for the protection of tenants from ejectment from their holdings." There is no indication here that this ejectment, against which protection was being afforded, was to be by landholders only. In the preamble, however, it is said that "with a view to putting a check on the growing tendency of landholders to eject or dispossess tenants from their holdings and in the wider national interest of increasing the' production of foodgrains, it is expedient to make provisions for the protection of tenants in Rajasthan from ejectment or dispossession from their holdings." Reliance is placed on these words in the preamble, and it is urged that the intention was to stop ejectment of tenants by their landholders, but it must be noted that this was only one of the reasons for enacting this law. The second reason, which was given in the preamble, was that protection was being afforded to tenants in the wider national interest of increasing the production of foodgrains. So far as this reason is concerned, it was immaterial who was the person ejecting, whether a landholder or a third person. It cannot, therefore, in our opinion be said with any force that the preamble indicates that the intention was merely to protect tenants from ejectment by landholders.;