- (1.) THIS is a revision under sec. 10 (2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, against an order of the S. D. O. Bharatpur, dated 23. 10. 54 granting protection to the opposite party under sec. 7 of the Ordinance.
(2.) WE have heard the counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The judgment of the lower court has been challenged on three grounds, viz, that the applicants had not been given proper opportunity to produce some of their witnesses, that the opposite party is the co-owner of the land in dispute and not a tenant; and that Tunda, who was also cultivating the land, had already surrendered it to the applicant. As regards the first contention the applicants no doubt applied before the lower court on 12. 10. 1954 for recording the evidence of four of their witnesses who were alleged to be present in the court on that day. But the evidence of two persons Ganeshi and Mishri was duly recorded and a note was given by the trial court that applicant's evidence was finished and the next day was fixed for the argument of the parties and for decision. There is nothing on the record to show that the court refused to examine the remaining two witnesses of the applicant or that the applicant ever pressed that the witnesses may be examined. On the other hand arguments were held by both the parties on the next day. This clearly shows that the appli-cant himself did not feel the necessity of examining the remaining two witnesses. Thus there is no force in this contention. As regards the second contention, no doubt, the opposite party is shown in the revenue records as one of the co-owners of the land in dispute but this fact alone cannot deprive him from being a tenant of the land in question. There is nothing against one of the owners cultivating the land as a tenant of all the other co-owners. In the gasht girdawari of Svt. 2010 filed in the case the land in dispute is shown as shamlat deh given out as muafi zamindara to one Piru S/o Kherati and Tunda and Khachera opposite party have been shown as subtenants thereof. It is thus clear that the land was held by the opposite party along with Tunda under the principal tenant Peru. It was also admitted by some of the witnesses produced by the applicants in support of their case that the rent collected from this common land had been utilised for the community purpose of repairing chanpal, johar etc. It is thus clear that the opposite party was cultivating in the capacity of a tenant ana not in that of a co-owner. As regards the last contention it is accepted principal that if one tenant of a joint holding abandons his interest, the holding will be the exclusive tenancy of the remaining tenants and would not fall in. If any authority for this is needed it would be found in Hakim Khan vs. Md. Raja Khan (1945 A. W. R. (Revenue) 267s. Thus if Tunda abandoned his share of joint tenancy it will enure to the benefit of the opposite party and not to that of the land-owners. There is thus no force in this contention too. In the result we see no reason to disturb the findings of the lower court. The revision is hereby rejected.;