- (1.) THIS is an application in revision under sec. 10(2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, against an order of the S.D.O. Hindaun, dated 9-5-55 whereby the applicant's prayer for re-instatement over the land in dispute under sec 7 of the Ordinance was rejected by the lower court.
(2.) THE applicant's case before the lower court was that he and the opposite party and been jointly cultivating the land in dispute as co-tenants and that the same was recorded in their Khatedari, as joint khatedars in the share of half and half each. It is contended that both the parties cultivated this land jointly last year but the opposite party dispossessed the applicant from his share of the land on Kartik Sudi 11, Svt. 2011 corresponding to 7-11-1954. THE applicant, therefore, prayed that he should be re-instated on half the land in Khasra Nos. 875, 876, 901, 940, 975, 1001. 1008, 1109 and 1113. THE opposite party resited the claim and urged that the applicant had no share in the land and that the whole of it was in the cultivatory possession of the opposite-party, THE trial court after recording the evidence of the parties dismissed the application only on the ground that the applicant being a co-tenant, he could not be given any protection under sec. 7 of the Ordinance but could seek partition of the joint holding by bringing a regular suit. In holding this view the lower court relied on a single bench decision of the Board in Mula vs. Ganga Sahai (1955 RLW Revenue Supplement, page 27). We have carefully gone through the record of the case and heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the rule of the law enunciated by a single member of the Board in the case relied upon by the lower court is clearly against the decision of the Division Bench of the Board given in several similar cases and cannot, therefore, be considered as good law on the point in issue. We have examined all these cases. In 1952 RLW Revenue Supplement, page 29, it was held by a division bench of the Board that the operation of sec. 7, which is the main section for reinstatement of tenants cannot be restricted to tenants who have been dispossessed or ejected by the land-holders but applies to all cases where a tenant has been dispossessed from his holding. In R.L.W. 1952, Revenue Supplement, page 62. it was held that tenants cultivating parts of the holding held jointly with co-sharers are entitled to re-instatement if they are dispossessed by co-sharers. Again in 1952 R.L.W. Revenue Supplement, page 68 it was held that even if a tenant is dispossessed by any person other than landlord he is entitled to re-instatement. It appears that these decisions were not brought to the notice of the learned Member while deciding the case relied upon by the lower court. We, with due respect, hold that the decision in Mula vs. Ganga Sahai does not lay down the law correctly on the point. The result is that the application is allowed, the order of the lower court is set aside and the case is sent back to the lower court with the direction that it be decided on merits in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance.;