N.C.KOCHAR, J. - (1.) THE facts giving rise to this Special Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance are as under: On October 4, 1958. the appellants had filed a suit under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act') against Bhura, respondent in the court of Sub -Divisional Officer, Phalodi, for possession of the land in dispute situated in village Kotra, Tehsit Osiyan, District Jodhpur.
(2.) IT was alleged that respondent Bhura had been inducted in the land is dispute for a period of two years under an agreement dated 12th September, 1950 but after the expiry of period of tenancy, Bhura who remained in occupation of the land in dispute as a trespasser, could not be evicted by the appellants because of the promulgation of the Rajasthan Regularization(Protection of Tenants) Ordinance ('the Ordinance'). The appellants, therefore sought a decree for possession of the land. The suit of the appellant was contested by Bhura who denied that he was a trespasser in the land and contended that the suit under Section 183 was not maintainable and if so advised, the appellants may take proceedings against him under Section 180 of the Act. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Officer, the appellant filed an application under Section 209 of the Act praying that in case Bhura was not held to be a trespasser, but was held to be a tenant from year to year, the suit be treated as under Section 180 (1)(b) and (c) of the Act and decree may be passed on the said basis. The learned Sub - Divisional Officer held that Bhura could not be termed as a trespasser but after the expiry of the period of two years of tenancy he became a tenant holding over from year to year. The decree for possession besides for rent at the double of the agreed rate was thus passed in favour of the appellant and against respondent Bhura.
(3.) RESPONDENT Bhura filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, who allowed the appeal and held that Bhura had become Khatedar tenant, in view of Section 19(1)(a) of the Act, as he was recorded as a sub -tenant in the Girdawari of Samvat year 2012. The suit of the appellants was, thus, dismissed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority.;