- (1.) THIS is a revision application under sec. 10(2). Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, against the order of the S.D.O. Hindaun dated 21.3.55 granting protection to the opposite party under sec. 7 of the Ordinance.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also examined the record. The first contention put-fourth on behalf of the applicant before me is that as there existed no relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties, the protection offered by the Ordinance could not be held applicable in this case. Reliance has been placed in this connection upon a single member decision of the Board reported in 1955 RRD 117. This decision is itself based upon a decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in 1953 RLW 223. Much need not be said on the point for the question stands determined authoritatively by a full bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court - Govinda vs. Board of Revenue Rajasthan, reported in 1954 RLW 259. A number of decisions including 1955 RLW 223 were examined in this case and it was held that ''There is no reason to cut down the wide amplitude of sec. 7(1) affording protection to tenants, whether it be against ejectment by landholders or at the instance of landholders, or by third persons who are trespassers. Consequently, the protection afforded by sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, is also available in case of dispossession of a person in occupation of the holding on or after the 1st day of April 1941, to a tenant as defined in the Ordinance, when such dispossession is made by a person other than the landholder e.g. a trespasser." Obviously this full bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court was not brought to the notice of the learned member while deciding the case referred to above. In view of the clear decision of the full bench of the Rajasthan High Court it can be held to be settled law that the protection of the Ordinance is available not only against the landholder or his agent but against a trespasser as well. The other argument advanced on behalf of the applicant was that the application presented before the lower court was barred by limitation. In the application it was clearly mentioned that wrongful dispossession took place towards the latter half of the month of Asadh. The witnesses examined by the opposite party clearly corroborate this point. It is true that the opposite party did not make any specific mention in his statement bit in view of the other overwhelming evidence, no inference adverse to him can be drawn on the basis of this oversight. The applicant himself had stated that he cultivated the land in the month of Asadh. His contention, however, is that it was towards the beginning of the month. Considering the evidence of the opposite party, I find no reason to rely upon this sole testimony of the applicant. It was also argued that adequate opportunity was not granted to the applicant to lead his evidence in the case. This too is without any substance. There had been a number of adjournments on the express request of the applicant. The mere fact that he applied for issue of process to witnesses could not absolve him from his responsibility to ensure that evidence was produced on the date fixed. Proceedings under the Ordinance are of a summary nature and there seems nothing objectionable in the procedure adopted by the trial court. Sufficient time was in fact granted to the applicant to lead his evidence and if that was not availed of by him, he is to blame himself for it. There is thus no substance in this revision which is hereby rejected.;