1. This is a revn against the order of the learned Munsif No. 1 of Sojat. The facts of the case, as can be gathered from the plaint, are as under:
2. There is a well known as Kosita at Sojat which was in the Bapi of Naraindas, Sampatraj & others. It was cultivated by Pokar son of Kesa, Jaga, Lachha & Pokar son of Magna. The Bapidars decided to sell their interest & on 20-1-1949, the cultivators are alleged to have agreed to give up possession on 1-5-1949, to anybody who may purchase the rights of the Bapidars. The Bapidars sold their interest for Rs. 10,500/- to the aforesaid Pokar son of Kesa, Jaga & Bhanka on 26-4-1949. The present suit was brought on 9-5-1949 by the aforosaid purchasers of Bapi rights against the other two cultivators Lachhman & Pokar son of Magna on the allegations that they were trespassers having vacated the land in accordance with the agreement of 20-1-1949 & re-entered there- after.
3. The defts submitted a petn that under the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance IX (9) of 1949, the suit should oe stayed. The learned Munsif accepted the prayer of the defts. Hence this revn.
4. It was contended that the Ordinance applied only in respect of suits between the landholders & tenants but as the clefts were trespassers, they were not entitled to the benefit of this Ordinance & in the alternative, it was also prayed that an allegation for the land being put to waste by the defts should have been gone into.
5. The relevant provision of the Ordinance is contained in Section 5 which lays down that,
'all suits, appeals, revisions, references, applns & proceedings, for the ejectment of tenants, pending on the date of the commencement of this Ordinance, shall be temporarily consigned to records.'
6. The word 'tenant' has been denned in Section 2 Cl. (viii) as a person by whom rent is, or, would be, payable but is stated not to include a trespasser. 'Trespasser' is defined as a person, who takes possession of unoccupied land without authority or who prevents another person from occupying land duly let out to him. Section 4 lays down that no tenant shall be liable to ejectment or dispossession Irom the whole or any part of his holding in ilajasthan on any ground whatsoever so long as the Ordinance remains in force. This Ordinance was promulgated on 21-6-1949 with a view to put in a check on the growing tendency of landholders to dispossession or ejectment of tenants from holding & in wider national interest of increasing the production of food-grains, according to the preamble of the Ordinance.
7. The argument for the applts is that the defts having agreed to vacate the land on '-5- 1949 under their agreement of 20-1-1949, were in the position of trespassers from 1-5-1949. The alleged agreement has been produced by the p'Ms & the relevant portion is as follows:
'The Kosita well is in the Bapi of Sampatraj. The value of Arath is Rs. 1,500/-. An auction is to be held of the well including the Arath & one year's rent has been remitted to the cultivators. If the bid Is knocked in the name ol somebody else, the present cultivators agree that they would give possession to the purchasers on Baisakh Sud 3. (1-5-1949). The last bid was of Jaga for Rs. 21,000/- but Bhana, Pokar son of Magna, Pokar son of Kesa & Lachhman son of Kesa & Jaga son of Ganesh were declared the final purchasers for Rs. 20,000/- which sum was to be paid within one month.'
It was alleged by the pltfs that Pokar son of Magna & Lachhman son of Kesa did not subsequently agree to take the Bapi rights & the Bapidars sold their rights to the pltfs. Pokar son of Kesa, Jaga son of Ganesh & Bhanka for Rs. 10,500/- on 26-4-1949. It is apparent that the agreement, if any, was to vacate the land if the sale was by public auction & knocked to a stranger. Since the sale which wets agreed to by all parties on 20-1-1949 in favour of the four cultivators & Bhanka, was not carried through & a fresh private sale was made in favour of the pltfs, they were not entitled to take advantage of the earlier agreement to vacate the land. It will be deemed to have fallen through along with the public sale. The defts therefore, continued to remain as tenants & the Ordinance was clearly applicable to this case.
8. Even assuming that the agreement purported to put an end to the status of the defts as tenants from 1-5-1949, the agreement became unenforceable during the period that the Ordinance was to remain in force as by Section 3 it has been laid down that the provisions of the Ordinance shall have effect notwithstanding any- thing to the contrary in any other Jaw, rule, order, instrument or usage having the force of. law in any part of Rajasthan. This provision relieved the defts of their liability to eviction after the Ordinance came into force. The definition of 'trespasser' in this Ordinance is limited to a person who took possession of unoccupied land without authority or who prevented another person from occupying land duly let out to him. The defts do not come in the first category since the commencement of their possession was lawful under the authority of Bapidars, & there could not be a due letting to another tenant until they had surrendered their holding or were dispossessed under due process of law. The allegation that the defts had surrendered their holding & had re-entered is vague since no date of surrender or re-entry Is mentioned. It is inconsistent with the rest of the plaint & is obviously an after thought.
9. It may be observed that the word 'tenant In Sections 4 & 5 would include an ex-tenant since so long as the relationship of landlord & tenant exists, no question of ejectment arises & it is only when the tenancy is determined in various ways provided by law that a suit against an extenant is maintainable. The Ordinance would, in my opinion, protect all persons who lawfully entered into possession as tenants at the time of commencement of their possession & did not, become trespassers as defined in the Ordinance.
10. The next argument that a suit for ejectment is maintainable on the ground of any aci done by the tenant detrimental to the land in that holding remains to be examined. The I only act ascribed to the defts is that they were not putting manure on the field. The omission to put manure would only lead to lesser returns in the crop & there can be no detriment to the land itself. That ground also fails. The lower Ct has rightly consigned the case to records & this revn fails & is dismissed.