- (1.) THIS revision application arises out of the order of the S. D. O. Kotah dated the 8th November, 1954 by which he rejected the application of the revisionist for giving him protection under sec. 7 of the R. P. T. O.
(2.) PUT briefly the facts of the case are that Kesri Lal the applicant filed an application before the S. D. O. Kotah against Mathura Lal, the non applicant, in which he stated that he had been cultivating a holding measuring about 60 bighas in village Dadwana as a Zaili of the applicant's maternal grand mother who was a recorded khatedar. She having died Mathura Lal the opposite party contested mutation in court of the S. D. O. and challenged the title of Kesri Lal as an heir of the deceased khatedar. I hat case was decided sometime back on the basis of a compromise and a decree was given by the court in terms of that compromise by which both the parties were to get their due shares in the holding of the deceased The applicant who had been cultivating some of this land and was recorded as a Zaili of the deceased in Svt. years 2007 to 2009 was forcibly evicted by the opposite party. He, therefore, prayed that he should be re-instated on the land from which he was thus forcibly ejected by the opposite party. In his written statement, the non-applicant stated that both the parties contested succession to the holding of the deceased woman and ultimately by an order of the court their shares were decreed and each one of them was declared as owner of his share and in consequence of this he took possession over the land in dispute. The trial court after recording • some evidence observed that the applicant failed to establish that he was a tenant of the non applicant and that he cultivated this land as such. It, therefore, held that since there was no relationship of a land-lord and a tenant between the parties, the applicant could not gel: any relief under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance which was applicable only to case between a tenant and a land lord. I have carefully gone through the record of the case and heard the learned counsels for both the parties. On a consideration of the entire circumstances of the case, I have no hesitation in observing that the conclusion arrived at by the lower court is perfectly correct. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant argued that his client was recorded as a Zaili in the khasra teep of Svt. 2007-2009 and his status being that of a tenant, he could not be evicted by the opposite party who stepped in the shoes of the deceased land-lord on the basis of succession and was therefore entitled to protection under sec. 7 of the R. P. T. O. The learned counsel for the opposite party urged that the applicant had nowhere stated in his application or in his examination that he was a tenant of the non-applicants or that he had any liability to pay rent to him, and unless the relationship of a land lord and tenant was established the applicant, even if evicted by the non-applicant, could not get any protection under sec. 7 of the R. P. T. O. Reliance has been placed on R. R. D. 1954 page 74 in which it has been held that where there is no liability to pay rent the person in possession cannot be regarded as a tenant. In the R. L. W. 1953, page 224, a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan also held that under sec. 7 of the R. P. T. O. the court of S. D. O. could grant relief only when there had existed relationship of land lord and tenant between the parties. As regards entry in khasra teep, the entries made therein by the patwari showing the applicant as a Zaili may be a relevant fact under sec. 35 of the Evidence Act, but it is not sufficient to charge a person with liability. "it is not any part of the law of India that settlement records are by themselves conclusive evidence of the facts which they purport to record. They have merely to be considered with other evidence" (Law of Evidence of Monir, Third Edition, page 378 ). In the present case, the applicant never stated that he was a tenant of the non-applicant to whom any rent was ever paid. There is also no other evidence to prove their relationship of a tenant and a land lord. This being so, the S. D. O. has rightly rejected the application and his order is hereby upheld. The result is, that the revision application is, hereby rejected. .;