H.D. Ujjwal—All these six applications are for transfer of cases under the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance from the courts of the Sub-Divisional Officers, Bayana, Bharatpur, Jhunjhunu and Jaipur.

2. An objection has been raised by Shri Roop Chand Sogani, counsel for the opposite party in one of the cases to the effect that the Board of Revenue has no power to transfer a case under the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance. He contends —

(i) that there is no provision in the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance for the transfer of cases instituted under sec. 7 of the Ordinance, in the court of a Sub-Divisional Officer or other officer of equal status;

(ii) that the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, except as otherwise specifically provided therein, does not in any way affect the provisions of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance; and

(iii) that the powers of reinstatement under sec. 7 of the R.P.T.O. had been conferred on a S.D.O. or other officer of equal status and he acts as a persona designata and not as an "Established court" and cases pending on his file cannot, therefore, be transferred, by the Board of Revenue.

In support of the last point Shri Sogani has cited the following precedents to show that the High Courts declined to transfer cases or to interfere with the order sought to be revised, as such orders had been passed by an authority acting as persona designata and not as a "Court" :—

A.I.R. 1950 East Punjab 1981 F.Tr., A.I.R. 1950 Allahabad 80 F.Tr.; A.I.R. 1950 Nagpur, 14; A.I.R. 1949, Bombay 188: A.I.R. 1949 Madras, 787, 716; A.I.R. 1952 Madras, 45; A.I.R. 1950 Hydrabad, 59; A.I.R. 1951 Rajasthan, 45; A.I.R. 1949 Privy Council. 129; A.I.R. 1949 Lahore, 131 F.Tr.

3. Shri Laxminarain Yadav representing the applicant argues that under sec. 12 of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue Ordinance, the Revenue Board has powers of superintendence and control over all the subordinate revenue courts and officers, whereas under sec. 227 of the Constitution of India, High Courts have only powers of superintendence over subordinate courts and tribunals. The legislature thus intended to confer on the Board of Revenue not merely superintendence over all the revenue courts but in addition to it control was given to it not only over all subordinate courts but officers as well, and it would defeat the very purpose for which these special powers were given if the Board failed to transfer a case where good and sufficient reason existed for taking such action in the interests of justice.

4. Shri Yadav further pointed out that as held by the Full Bench of the Revenue Board for Rajasthan (1952 Rajasthan Law Weekly 77) the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance was not self-contained and where there was no provision in it on a particular point, resort must be had to the ordinary law and the Board of Revenue could therefore take action under sec. 29 Of the Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, in regard to cases under the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance if the ends of justice so required.

5. We have carefully considered the law and the rulings cited by the learned counsel of both the parties. It is clear that decision in this case mainly hinges on the determination of the point whether a Sub-Divisional Officer or other officer of equal status acting under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance is to be regarded as a persona designata or a court? The cases cited by Shri Sogani related to orders which had been passed by various authorities in matters pertaining to payment of wages, industrial disputes, municipal elections, etc. The cases under the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance have however to be distinguished from those cases. Here we have a piece of legislation which was enacted to protect tenants from ejection and Sub-Divisional Officers or other officers of equal status throughout Rajasthan were invested with powers of reinstatement und

Click Here to Read the rest of this document