- (1.) THIS is a revision under sec. 10 (2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, against an order of the S. D. O., Dholpur, dated 20.9.1954 granting protection to the opposite -party under sec. 7 of the Ordinance.
(2.) I have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. The only contention put forth by the counsel for the applicant before me in support of his revision application is that the land in dispute was owned jointly by the applicants and one Bhika S/o Chhitar and as Bhika had let out the field without the consent of the applicant to the opposite -party they were no better than trespassers and were not entitled to any protection under the Ordinance.
(3.) THE counsel for the applicant has frankly conceded before me that Bhika and the applicants are the joint owners of the land in dispute which is recorded in their joint khata in the revenue record. His only contention is that Bhika had exceeded his powers by leasing out the land in dispute to the opposite -party without the consent of all the joint: owners and as such the opposite -party could not be held to possess the status of a tenant. I have no hesitation in holding that this argument is utterly devoid of any substance. "In the case of a body of co -land -lords each individual member is land lord of the whole tenancy and, therefore, just as much the land lord of the tenancy as the whole collective body is the land lord of it. On course no single land lord of a joint estate can do an act adversely affecting the rights of another co -land -lord -Some acts may be of such a nature that they cannot be upheld unless the consent of all the landlords is obtained, such as a permanent alienation of land or grant of occupancy rights. In some, a majority of the land -lords in favour of the act may be sufficient to give them validity, e.g. an application for ejectment of a tenant (sec. 183 of the Alwar Revenue Code). There may as well be some acts of such a character that a single individual may be entitled to represent the whole body. To my mind a bonafide temporary lease of land for cultivation for the benefit of all co -sharers falls under the last category. Nevertheless it is open to the landlord who cannot see his way to acquiesce into such an arrangement to sue to get this contract declared void but untill it is so declared a person admitted to a tenancy by a single land -lord acting bonafid for the management of the joint estate cannot be treated as a mere trespasser. The principle behind this view is that such a leases is not absolutely void although it may be voidable because the lesson has exceeded his powers or exercised them without any authority or regard of certain restrictions dictated by ordinary prudence. Such leases might stand until they are challenged by persons adversely affected and cancelled by proper recourse to law. Thus the opposite -party who was admittedly put in possession by one of the land lords cannot be regarded as a trespasser and if he is dispossessed wrongly by anyone of the landlord or by a third party he is certainly entitled to protection under the Ordinance. The lower court was, therefore, justified in granting protection to the opposite party. There is no force in this revision which is hereby rejected.;