- (1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner Jaipur, dated 22-2-54, affirming the decree of the trial court whereby the suit of the appellant for being declared as occupancy tenant of the land covered by Khasra No. 131 and 134 of village Behror District Alwar belonging to the respondents was dismissed.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondents who are the biswedars of the land in dispute caused a notice of ejectment to be issued to the appellant in accordance with sec. 180 (5) of the Alwar State Revenue Code in October 46. THE appellant contested his liability to ejectment and instituted a suit for the purpose in accordance with sec. 18 (1) in the court of the Assistant Collector, Behror. THE Assistant Collector after enquiries decreed the suit whereby the appellant was declared an occupancy tenant and the notice of ejectment issued against him was ordered to be cancelled. THE respondents filed an appeal against this order before the S. D. O. Alwar who allowed the appeal and remanded the case for further enquiry and fresh decision. THE case was then enquired into by the Tehsildar (Assistant Collector) Behror, in accordance with the order of remand and on 28-3-49, it was ultimately dismissed on the ground that the appellant had been in continuous possession of the land in dispute at the same rate of rent from Svt. 1992 to Svt. 2002 i. e. only 11 years and such he was not entitled to occupancy rights under sec. 136 of the Alwar State Revenue Code. THE appellant then filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, but it was dismissed by his order dated 22-2-24. Hence this second appeal before us. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his appeal is that his client had been holding the land continuously on a fixed rent since Svt. 1992 and as the notice of ejectment issued to him after Svt. 2002 required him to vacate the land at the end of Svt. 2003 by which time he would have completed 12 years' continuous possession, he was entitled to be declared as occupancy tenant and the notice of ejectment issued to him was liable to be cancelled. In this connection he invited our attention to the provision of sec. 181 (5) of the Alwar State Revenue Code which provides that "a decree or order for the ejectment of a tenant shall not be executed at any other time than between the 1st and 31st day of May both days inclusive. "we have no hesitation in holding that there is no force in this contention. According to sec. 136 of the Alwar State Revenue Code, occupancy rights accrue to a tenant only when he has completed 12 years' continuous possession without a patta or kabuliyat and on payment at a fixed rate of rent. It is frankly admitted by the counsel for the appellant that this statutory period of 12 years had not been completed when the notice was served on him. His mere contention is that since the decree of ejectment could be executed against him only after the 1st of May following which was about the end of the agricultural year, he would by that time acquire the rights occupancy as already stated. This contention is devoid of force. Sec. 182 of the Alwar State Revenue Code clearly lays down that "if a tenant for whose ejectment proceedings have been taken, has, conformably with local usage, but before receiving a notice under sec. 180 prepared for sowing any land comprised in his tenancy but has not sown or planted crops on that land, he shall be entitled to receive from the landlord before ejectment, a fair equivalent in money for the labour and capital expended by him in so preparing the land. " This clearly shows that after the notice of ejectment a tenant has no right to prepare or sow the land and he should vacate the land in case he is not already entitled to occupancy rights on that date. Further it is clear from the language of sec. 181 of the said Code that by notice a tenant is informed that he must vacate the land before the 1st pay of May next following. This means that he should vacate the land any time between the service of notice and the 1st of May next following. It is wrong to presume that the notice itself permits the tenant to continue to occupy the land until the month of May before which a decree of ejectment cannot be executed. In support of the view the counsel for the opposite-party invited our attention to a decision given by Collector, Alwar, in case No. 45 instituted on 17-7-35, and decided on 16-6-36, Kanhiya etc. vs. Bhariu Kishen. In this case a similar point was raised before the learned Collector and it was decided that since the tenant had not completed 12 years continuous possession on the date of the institution of the suit, he could not be considered as entitled to occupancy rights. The counsel for the appellant failed to show us any decision which could support his contention. In the circumstances, we feel that the lower court was justified in dismissing the suit of the appellant and there is no valid ground to interfere with that decision. The appeal is hereby dismissed. .;