- (1.) REVISIONS Nos. 1, 9 and 10 under sec. 10(2) Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, involve a common question of law and hence all of them will be disposed of by this judgment.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record. The short and simple point of law arising for determination in this case is as to whether rents payable by a tenant after he has been reinstated under sec. 7 of the Ordinance can be realised under sec. 8 of the Ordinance or only by a regular suit. The learned S.D.O. has held that such arrears cannot be realised under sec. 8 of the Ordinance. We have bestowed our careful consideration on the question and feel no hesitation in observing that the view taken by the lower court is clearly untenable and against the express provisions of law. Sec. 8(1) of the Ordinance lays down that the rent payable to the landlord by a tenant who has been reinstated under sec. 7 of the Ordinance shall be the same as was payable by him before the ejectment or dispossession leading to such reinstatement. Obviously these provisions will be called into operation only after a tenant has been reinstated under sec. 7 of the Ordinance and the term "rent payable" would obviously mean payable by the tenant as and when it falls due. Sub-sec.(3) lays down that if any rent is not paid on or before the due dates therefor the person making the default shall be liable to pay to the landholder a penalty in addition to the due rent to be determined in accordance with the principles laid down in this sub-clause. The words "shall be liable" refer to future liability as and when arising. Sub-sec. (4) lays down that where any rent remains unpaid after the due date therefore the landlord may apply to the S.D.O who may after making such summary enquiry as he may consider necessary may proceed to recover such rent along with the penalty as if it was an arrear of land revenue. Thus the entire scheme envisaged in this section would clearly show that a tenant on reinstatement is bound to pay after reinstatement the same rent which he was paying before ejectment and if he makes any default in payment thereof on the due dates, he shall be liable to a penalty which along with the rent shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. No right can exist without a corresponding obligation and the scheme of sec. 8 of the Ordinance is a recognition of that principle. It gives the tenant a right of reinstatement in a summary manner and also imposes an obligation upon him to pay rents as and when they fall due after reinstatement. If a default is made by the tenant, the landlord is given a corresponding right to realise arrears of rent falling due after reinstatement by means of an application under sec 8 4) of the Ordinance. The lower court relying on a decision of the Board reported in RLW 1952 (Revenue Supplement)12, has held that arrears accruing after reinstatement cannot be realised under sec. 8 of the Ordinance as the decision of the Board relates to arrears prior to reinstatement. There is nothing in the reported decision to show that the arrears that were held realisable related to a period prior to reinstatement. We have examined the record of this case and going through the judgment of the trial court we find that the rents that were sought to be realised were of a period after reinstatement and this has been frankly conceded by the learned counsel for the opposite party to whom also the record was shown by us. In the result we would allow at these revisions, set aside the orders of the-lower court and direct that the case be proceeded with further in accordance with law.;