BAPNA, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) RANJEETA and others opposite parties made an application to the Anti-ejectment Officer, Dausa, on the 21st June, 1952, for restoration of possession under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance (No. IX of 1949 ). The present petitioners Sukha and others contested the application but the Anti-Ejectment Officer found in favour of the party of RANJEETA and directed his re-instatement in respect of field No. 529 in village Beechai in Tehsil Lalsot. A revision filed by the petitioners to the Board of Revenue was dismissed. In this petition, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance (No. IX of 1949) was only applicable if a tenant or a sub-tenant was dispossessed by the landlord, but in this petition it was not alleged that Sukha and his party occupied that status. It was contended that Sukha and his party had obtained a Patta from the Thikana many years ago and had also cultivated the land and Ranjeeta and his party were never in possession of the land. It was also argued that the dispossession, if any, had taken place may years ago and the Anti-Ejectment Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain a petition after the expiry of three months from the date of dispossession as mentioned in the ordinance. Learned counsel relied on the case of Hardeo vs. Rajasthan Revenue Board (1) (1952r. L. W. , p. 223.), in support of his argument on this first question. That case is distinguishable, as the petitioner before the Anti-Ejectment Officer in that case alleged himself to be a vendee and that he was forcibly dispossessed by the vendor. In the present case it has been found by the Board of Revenue while confirming the decision of the Anti-Ejectment Officer that Ranjeeta and his party were entered as sub-tenants in the revenue records. Learned counsel explained that in the procedure followed by the Settlement Department, a Jagirdar is entered as a Khatedar and a tenant as a sub-tenant. Even if this be so, the petitioners' claim is through the Jagirdar and as the finding of the Revenue Board is that Ranjeeta was in possession of the field in dispute from Svt. 2c03 to Svt. 2007 and was only dispossessed, in Sawan Svt. 2008 by Sukha's party, it is obvious that the mischief is one which is sought to be prevented by the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance. It does not make any difference if the actual dispossession is by the landlord himself or by a nominee or agent or employee of the landlord. The dispossession of Ranjeeta by Sukha's party claiming through the landlord can be protected under sec. 7 of the Ordinance. On the question of limitation the finding as mentioned above is that Ranjeeta and his party were in possession of the land upto Sawan Svt. 2008. It is conceded that on that finding the application would be within time. It is however, contended that that finding is incorrect as in certain civil and criminal litigations Ranjeeta is alleged to have admitted his dispossession long time ago. These admissions have however, not been produced but even if they existed, the finding of the Revenue Board is supported by entries in the revenue records and this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings of fact. In this petition, the validity of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance (No. IX of 1949) was also challenged, but in view of the recent decision of this Court upholding its validity, learned counsel has not argued this point and therefore it should not be considered further. The petition has no force and it is hereby dismissed with costs. .;