- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against an appellate decree of the Additional Commissioner Jaipur, dated 25.8.55 confirming the decree of the trial court whereby the respondents' suit for ejectment of the appellants from the land in dispute was decreed.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. WE have no hesitation in observing that the lower courts have failed to approach the case in a right perspective. The respondents based their claim on the ground that the holding in dispute was given to the appellants for agricultural purposes, but by cons tructing residential houses thereupon they have committed "an act detrimental to the lands ' " the holding or inconsistent with the purpose for which it was let." The case came before the Board previously as well on 8.1.54 and was remanded with the observation that the trial court should have asked the plaintiff to give better particulars of these acts or omissions and then to frame definite issues on the point. The following issues were framed by the trial court - 1. Was the land in dispute leased out to the defendants by the plaintiff on a Patta for agricultural purposes ? 2. WEre the defendants constructing houses upon the land instead of cultivating it and were thereby spoiling the land ? If so, with what effect ? Are the plaintiffs entitled to eject the defendants and recover possession ? During the course of the trial it was also pleaded by the defendants that they had given some other land in exchange for the land in dispute to the plaintiffs, as it was agreed upon between the parties that the defendants may have their Nagla on that land. The trial court held that this allegation has not been proved by the defendants, that the land was given to them for cultivation. But by putting up a Nagla (a group of hutments) they have spoiled the land and hence they were liable to be ejected. The Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 has been enforced with effect from 15th October, 1955 and its provisions would therefore govern this appeal. As laid down in clause 19, sec. 5 of the Act the term "improvement" with reference to a tenants holding means a dwelling-house erected on the holding by the tenant for his own occupation or a cattle shed or a store house or any other construction for agricultural purpose erected or setup by him on his holding. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the kachhu thatches supported on bamboos and tattis are anything which cannot be covered by this definition. In fact the statements of the Naib Tehsildar and the Patwari who had been on the spot leave no room to doubt that the constructions against which objection has been raised by the plaintiffs are mere thatches erected upon bamboos and tattis. This is the usual residential arrangement made in that locality. Thus it is clear that the construction of these residences does not amount to an illegal act or omission but is merely an 'improvement' in the eye of law to which the appellants are clearly entitled. The decisions of the lower courts therefore are clearly untenable as being against the express provisions of law on the subject. We would, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of the lower courts and direct that the suit brought by the respondents shall stand dismissed throughout. The parties shall however bear their own costs;