A person who continues to occupy agricultural land after the expiry of the fixed term of their tenancy is considered a tenant holding over and can be ejected under Section 180(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

1. - The petitioners claim to be sub-tenants of Kalyan Bux, who is now represented in the present writ petition by his sons Brij Mohan, and Ram Gopal and widow Suit. Ghisi (respondents 4 to 6) in respect of a piece of land situated in village Pachar. District Sikar. The land holder Kalyan Bux, who claimed to be a khatedar tenant of the said land, filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioners under Section 180 (I) (b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the Court of Sub-divisional Officer, Sikar. The suit was dismissed by the said Court, but on appeal the Revenue Appellate Authority decreed the plaintiff's claim for ejectment of the petitioners from the land in dispute and also imposed a penalty upon the petitioners of twice the land revenue. The petitioners preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed and the Board upheld the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. While upholding the decree for ejectment of the petitioners, the Board held that the petitioners, who were in possession of the land in dispute after the expiry of the period of their sub-lease, at the end of Samvat year 2017, became trespassers and were liable to ejectment under section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Thus, the view of the Board was that the suit filed by Kalyan Bux (deceased), though not maintainable under section 180 (1) (b) of the Act, yet the same was maintainable under section 183 and the decree for ejectment was, therefore, maintained with the aforesaid modification.

2. The petitioners have come to this Court challenging the order passed by the Board of Revenue on July 4,1977. It was contended by Mr. Bhandari, appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners could not be held to be trespassers, but they were merely tenants at sufferance, as they were continuing in possession of the land in dispute after the expiry of the term of their tenancy, without the assent of the tenant and without payment or acceptance of rent, and as such the decree for ejectment passed against the petitioners was erroneous. The Board of Revenue while dismissing the petitioner's appeal, placed reliance upon a Full Bench decision of the Board in Bhalla v. Mst. Gulab Kanwar (1977 RRD 1). wherein a majority of the members of the Board took the view that a person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy, becomes a trespasser and is liable to be ejected under Section 183 of the Act. Mr. Bhandari relied upon the minority decision of one of the Members of the Board of Revenue-Shri K.S. Ujjwal-who held that a person who has been lawfully let in, can become a trespasser only after his tenancy has been terminated in accordance with law and in the absence of such termination of his tenancy, his position will be juridical and he will be in a position of a tenant holding over and not a trespasser. In taking this view, the learned Member, Shri Ujjwal relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Nandgir v. Board of Revenue (1963 RRD 250).

3. In the present case, we do not desire to express any concluded opinion upon the question as to whether the petitioners, who continued to remain in possession of the land in dispute after the expiry of the term of their sub-lease, did so as trespassers or as sub-tenants holding over, because it is not necessary for the purposes of this case to do so. In our view, for the decision of the present case, it would be sufficient to observe that in either case the decree for ejectment has to be upheld. If the view taken by the majority of the Members of the Board of Revenue in Bhalla's case is not accepted and even if it may be assumed for the purposes of this case that the petitioners continued in possession as tenants holding over from year to year, after the expiry of the period of their sublease, then a suit under Section 180 (I) (b) of the Act could be properly maintained and the decree for ejectment could be passed therein against the petitioners, treating them