- (1.) THIS is an application in revision under sec. 10 (3) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, against an order of the Anti-Ejectment Officer Sikar dated 3-11-1952 granting protection to the opposite-party under sec. 7 of the Ordinance.
(2.) THE validity of the lower court's order has been assailed before us mainly on two grounds which shall be dealt with separately. The first contention put forth on behalf of the applicant is that Laxmi Narain holds no locus-standi in the case as his father is alive. The evidence on record makes it abundantly clear that Laxmi Narain himself and three others are the tenants of the land in dispute and hence the fact that Laxmi Narain's father is alive and has not joined in the proceedings is immaterial. The other contention is that the evidence of the opposite-party itself discloses that Laxmi Narain, Ladu, Bhura and Buxa are the joint tenants of the lands in dispute and as the application has been instituted on behalf of Laxmi Narain alone it is bound to fail on this score. It is pertinent to not in this connection that no such objection was ever taken before the lower court on behalf of the applicant. The opposite-party had clearly mentioned in the first para of his application presented before the lower court that he alone with three above named person was cultivating the land in dispute. No objection was taken by the applicant in his written statement dated 23-8-1952 as to the non-joinder of the three persons. During the course of enquiry Bhura was examined and he corroborated the testimony of Laxmi Narain, There is nothing on the record to show that the re-instatement ordered by the lower court would not operate to the advantage of Ladu and Buxa and that they posses any interest detrimental to that of Laxmi Narain or Bhura. Under these circumstances it can be easily presumed that Laxmi Narain is acting on behalf of all the joint tenants and thus there is no irregularity in the order of the lower court. This view of law finds ample support from a number of decisions. In 13 Indian Cases 125 it was held that where a person enters wrongfully upon any land it is open to any one of the persons dispossessed to maintain an action for his ejectment and it is no substantial grievance that all the persons dispossessed have not been joined as plaintiff. In 1941 Revenue Decisions 1090 it was held - "where several tenants, presumably relatives, are ejected and one of them alone makes an application for restoration of possession to all of them,it may be treated as an application filed on behalf of all the tenants, and may be maintained. " The fact that the co-tenants in this case have not been shown to be related to each other does not in any way affect the application of the decision, for the principle involved is similar. This decision was quoted with approval in 1942 Revenue Decision 521 where an application for re-instatement made by two only out of three sons of the deceased recorded tenants was held maintainable, On behalf of the applicant also some decisions have been cited in support of his contention. A. I. R. 1940patna 193 has no application to the case for it relates to a plaintiff who claimed an undivided share in a property from which he and his co-sharers were ousted. It was decided therein that such a possession was not contemplated by sec. 9of the Specific Relief Act. In 1947 R. D. 326 the question involved was an entirely different one. One of the plaintiffs died and despite notice on an application for substitution of name his widow did not appear. It was held that she could not be joined as a plaintiff against her wishes and her absence was fatal to the suit. As stated above in the present case there is nothing to show that the other persons were not willing to join with Laxmi Narain. In 1948 R. D. 131 it was held that sec. 246 applies to joint tenancies also and a suit wherein one co-tenant is a plaintiff and the others are defendants it is bound to fail. The reason for these decision is apparent. Where the interest of the co-tenants are conflicting and self-contradictory one of them can not be deemed to represent all. Thus these cases have no application to the present case. Coming to the merits of the case we find that the order of the lower court stands perfectly justified and calls for no interference. The revision is hereby rejected. . ;