- (1.) THIS revision petition has arisen from an order of the Anti-Ejectment Officer, Sikar dated 19. 8. 0952 restoring the opposite party to the possession of the disputed land.
(2.) THE opposite party Mst. Naraini claims to be the land-holder of 50 bights of land in village Gokulpura, Tehsil Sikar which she alleges to be in her personal cultivation. This land is half of the area held in Bhog of a temple, the remaining half being held by the brother of the opposite party's husband, Ram Kanwar. Last year, an area of 16 bighas out of the disputed land was cultivated by Jodha, brother of the applicant and non-applicant in the lower court, without the opposite party's consent and at the alleged instigation of Ram Kanwar But Jodha restored the area to the opposite party by a mutual agreement under which the former was , compensated by the latter for the expenses incurred in the cultivation. This year the applicant cultivated the land on 30. 6. 1952 and the opposite party alleging herself to be thus dispossessed moved a petition under sec. 7 (2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, before the Anti-Ejectment Officer on 2. 7. 1952. Pokhra applicant alleged in reply that the land belonged to Ram Kanwar and not to the opposite party and was being cultivated by him as a tenant of Ram Kanwar to whom he was paying rent. THE learned Anti-Ejectment Officer reinstated Mst. Naraini, the opposite party. I have looked into the records of the case and heard the argilments of the counsel for either party. The main contention of the learned counsel for applicants is that the opposite party claimed possession over the land in her capacity of a landholder and the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance provides protection to a tenant and not to a landholder. The learned counsel for the opposite party argues that in the wider national interest of increasing the production of foodgrains the Act should be treated to accord protection to the landholders against their dispossession of the lands personally cultivated by them and that 1952 R. L. W. (Supplementary Reports) 68 Revenue, supported his case. The very object of the Ordinance, as mentioned in its preamble, is to check the growing tendency of the landlords to eject their tenants, and to protect the tenants from ejectment or dispossession from their holdings. It does not aim to protect the landholders from dispossession of lands in their personal cultivation. For such lands they cannot be treated as tenants according to the definition of 'tenant' given in the Ordinance because no rent is payable by them for such land. In 1952 R. L. W. (Supplement) 68 it has been held that even if a tenant is dispossessed by any person other than the landlord, he is entitled to reinstatement. " It does not apply to the dispossession of a landlord as in the present case. The objection raised by the learned counsel for applicants is of a preliminary nature and is allowed. In the face of this I deem it unnecessary to enter into other objections with regard to the merits of the case. Subject to the concurrence of my learned colleague, the order of the lower court is, therefore, set aside. The non-applicant is at liberty to seek remedy under the ordinary law. Shri Kishen Puri - I concur. .;