- (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against an order of the S. D. O. dated 4. 11. 58, under sec. 187 of the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the applicant mortgaged their fields on 19. 2. 48 for a sum of Rs. 4,000/- and 2,000/- respectively for a period of 20 years in favour of the opposite party. THE opposite party filed a suit under sec. 85 of the Act for recovery of THEka money in the court of the Tehsildar, Ajmer who by his order dated 11. 9. 59 decreed the claim for Rs. 475/11/9 with costs. On 9. 1. 58, an application was moved by the opposite party under sec. 98 of the Act in which it was alleged that as the applicants had not paid a single pie towards the decretal amount they may be rejected from the land in question. A notice was issued under sec. 98 requiring the applicants to pay within two months the decretal amount. This was not paid by the applicant within the statutory period and therefore, on 4. 11. 58, the Tehsildar directed that the applicants be ejected from the land and submitted the case for confirmation to the S. D. O. THE S. D. O. however, held that the order of the Tehsildar submitting the record of the case for confirmation was superfluous and therefore he returned the case to him to take further proceedings in the ease according to law. Hence this revision petition. It has been urged in this revision petition before us that the Sub-divisional Officer did not correctly appreciate the provisions of sec. 182 of the Act and that his order returning the case without confirming the order of Tehsildar was bad in law. The learned S. D. O. has referred to the provisions of sec. 182 of the Act and held that as the applicant had failed to comply with the requirement of sec. 182 (i) of the Act in as much as he had made no application for submission of the record for confirmation the Tehsildar was not justified in submitting the record. This argument would appear to be perfectly justified in view of the mandatory provisions of sec. 182 of the Act. It lays down that "when under the provisions of this Act, a revenue court is required to submit the record of a case to a confirming court, it shall not comply with such provisions, unless any of the parties to such case has within seven days of the decree or the order passed therein made an application bearing a court-fee stamp of the value of two rupees and eight annas to such revenue court, requesting that the record be submitted for confirmation It has not been denied before us that no such application was submitted by the applicant before the Tehsildar. Two contentions were, however, raised before us in this connection- The first was that sec. 93 of the Act provided that "no decree for arrears of rent shall be executed against a tenant otherwise than in the manner provided by sec. 98. Sec, 98 lays down that after a decree for arrears has become final the Tehsildar shall cause notice to be served on the tenant stating the amount due under the decree, and requiring him, within two months to pay such amount. If the amount is so paid, the Tehsildar shall record satisfaction on the decree; if the amount is not so paid, the Tehsildar shall order his ejectment from his holding and submit the record of the case for confirmation of the order passed by him to the S. D. O. The procedure to be followed by the confirming court is given in sub-sec. 4. The contention is that as no such application was required to be trade in this connection, it was not necessary for the applicant to present any application for submission of the record to the confirming court. This is evidently a fallacious argument. It has been clearly provided under sec. 182 that, whenever a revenue court is required to submit its record to the confirming court, the procedure given in this section shall be observed. It is, therefore, clear that in sec. 182 coming after secs 93 and 98, the legislature made it clear that in submitting a record for confirmation in all cases under this Act the procedure given in this section shall have to be followed. Sec. 93 or 94 have not been made any exception to this general provision The argument is, therefore, untenable. A reference was also made in this connection to the proviso contained in sec. 184 which provides procedure for confirmation. The proviso lays down that no such written statement shall be entertained on behalf of the party who has not applied for submission of the record under clause (i) of sec. 182, unless it bears a court fee stamp of the value of two rupees and eight annas. The argument is that this proviso contemplates that if a record is received by confirming court even without complying with the provision of sec. 182 (i), it would be open to the defaulting party to file a written statement on payment of a court fee of Rs. 2/8 -. This again is a fallacious argument. This section lays down the procedure for confirmation received by the confirming court, in which a case has been received in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Is cannot be held that the confirming court had received this case for confirmation. Receiving should be in accordance with the procedure prescribed in this behalf by the Act and if it has been received in a different manner the confirming court would be justified in holding that as it has not been received in the manner laid down in the Act, it has no jurisdiction to take proceedings for confirmation. For these reasons we hold that the learned S. D. O. was justified in passing the order that he did in the case. Another point raised on behalf of the applicant before us, is that as the ejectment proceedings were to take place now, the procedure laid down in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for ejectment, should be followed. Sec. 161 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act has been referred to in this connection which lays down that no tenant shall be liable to ejectment from his holding otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act. It has to be remembered in this connection that the Act was not repealed by the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the Rajasthan Revenue Laws (Extention) Act, 1957, Act No. 2 of 1958. was made applicable to Ajmer area vide Notification No. F. 1 (231) Rev. D/56 of 2nd June, 1958. As laid down in sec. of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, where any Act is repealed, unless a different intention appears the repeal shall not affect any investigation, legal proceedings or remedy in respect of any such right privilege obligation liability penalty, forfeiture or punishment as described in sub-sec. (c) of this section and such investigation legal proceedings or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced as if the repealing Act had not been passed. It is clearly laid down that the repeal of the Act will not affect any right, privilege or liability acquired or incurred under any enactment, unless a different intention appears clearly in the capacity enactment. Sec. 6 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act has been made applicable to Rajasthan Revenue Laws (Extension)" Act, 19 7. It is, however, laid down in sec. 9 (4) of the aforesaid Act that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provision contained in sub-sec. 3 any status or property acquired, or liability incurred before commencement of this Act in pursuance of the right confined, or a duty imposed, by the provisions of enactment and laws hereby repealed or the rules and regulations, orders and notifications hereby superseded shall not be affected by such repeal or supersession, notwithstanding that such status, property or liability is recognised to be inconsistent or could not be acquired or incurred under the provisions of the Rajasthan Revenue Laws. This clear provision leaves no room to doubt that the Rajasthan Revenue Laws (Extension) Act, provided that any liability incurred under the Ajmer Laws shall be enforced even if it found that the same was inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of the Rajasthan Revenue Laws. Under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, ejectment could not be carried out except in accordance with the provisions contained in Ch. 11 of that Act. The manner in which the ejectment is being sought in the present case does not find any mention in this chapter and hence it is clearly inconsistent with the provision of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. But as the liability to ejectment in this case had accrued prior to the extension of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act through Rajasthan Revenue Laws (Extension) Act, it will be enforced even now, although the Ajmer laws under which the liability accrued stand repealed by the aforesaid Act. To conclude, therefore, we hold that there is no substance in this revision which is hereby rejected. . ;