The appellant, Jodha Ram, however, filed a petition under Section 9 1 i of the Land Tenures Act on August 16, 1973, for eviction of Loti Ram and Rup Ram, before the Assistant Collector, on the ground that he himself was a small landholder and the aforesaid tenants held large areas of land and as such he was entitled to the possession of the lands in question under Section 9 1 i of the Land Tenures Act.
The Assistant Collector came to the companyclusion that as Lott Ram and Rup Ram, the tenants, held 269 kanals and 5 marlas of land in addition to the lands in dispute and Jodha Ram was a small landowner, he was entitled to recover possession of the lands in dispute.
It appears to be an admitted position that Om Parkash, appellant in one of the appeals, had entered into partnership agreement with Lott Ram and Rup Ram predecessor in interest of respondents 5 to 10 , to run an agricultural farm on the lands of aforesaid Om Parkash.
Jodha Ram, the appellant, who had acquired the right, title and interest of Om Parkash by aforesaid sale deed dated November 21, 1953, did number care to get himself impleaded as a party to that proceeding.
In the civil dispute, which was pending between Om Parkash and Loti Ram, the District Judge by an order dated June 18, 1970, held that Loti Ram and Rup Ram were entitled to remain in possession of the lands in question, as tenants.
The Collector in exercise of the powers companyferred on him by the Land Tenures Act, declared the lands in dispute as surplus area, by an order dated June 28, 1960.
Loti Ram and Rup Ram took a plea that as per the terms of the partnership, on the dissolution of the partnership, they were entitled to get 150 bighas of land as tenants.
The appellant Jodha Ram purchased the lands in dispute from Om Parkash through a sale deed dated November 21, 1953.
Ultimately, a writ petition was filed on behalf of the appellant, Jodha Ram, which was dismissed by the High Court.
The Land Tenures Act came into force on April 15, 1953.
That finding was affirmed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, as well as the Financial Commissioner.
On that finding, he directed eviction of the tenants.
