H.D. Ujjwal—This is an application by Gangu and Bhairon under sec. 10 (2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance No. IX of 1949, against an order of the Anti Ejectment Officer, Jaipur dated 18.2.1952 by which he accepted the application presented by Mst. Dhanni under sec. 7 of the Ordinance and ordered her reinstatement on khasra number 639 and 635 in village Malikpur. 2. Mst. Dhanni applicant is the wife of Ladu and the non-applicants are the sons of Ladus brothers Sadhu and Ladu. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners Gangu and Bhairon that the land claimed by Mst. Dhanni is their joint property and they are entitled to cultivate the same like other kothis which they held jointly. Mst. Dhanni did not cultivate the land herself and her son Ghinsia and her grandson Bhomla were alive and they alone could claim this land and Mst. Dhanni had no right to file this application. Objection regarding the competence of Mst. Dhanni to file this application was raised in their reply given but inspite of this Mst. Dhanni did not join her son and her grand son in the application. She, therefore, had been wrongly ordered to be reinstated. 3. The learned Anti-Ejectment Officer has observed in his order that the complicated procedure of C.P.C. regarding parties to plaints should not be made applicable in the simple applications under the Ordinance. 4. It is true that the technical provisions of the C.P.C. are not applicable in proceedings under the Ordinance but there are certain matters which have to be taken note of in every proceeding of a judicial nature. The circumstances of this case appear to be peculiar. The land in dispute was recorded in the name of Dhannis husband Ladu and her son Bhura. Both of whom are dead. However, it is admitted by the witnesses produced by Mst. Dhanni herself that Mst. Dhannis son Ghinsa is major and her grandson Bhomla who is a minor does not live with her but lives with her mother. It is also stated that Ghinsia and Bhomla had gone with ploughs to cultivate the land. It is not therefore, clear why those persons should not have come forward to claim reinstatement, if they had really been prevented from cultivating the land by the non-applicants. It is also stated that Ghinsia and Bhomla had gone with ploughs to cultivate the land. It is not therefore, clear why those persons should not have come forward to claim reinstatement, if they had really been prevented from cultivating the land by the non-applicants. If Bhomlas mother is alive his grand mother could not claim to be his guardian, specially when the grandson and his mother are living apart from the grand mother. The opposite party are no strangers but sons of brothers of Mst. Dhannis husband and it is also admitted that certain kothis are jointly held by both the parties. Objection to Mst. Dhannis right to file the application under sec. 7 of the Ordinance was raised in the written reply given by the opposite party. Inspite of this Mst. Dhanni neither produced her son who was a major to support her application nor Bhomlas mother had been produced. This clearly shows that Mst.Dhannis son and his sons wife, mother of Bhomla,are not prepared to join with Dhanni in claiming this land. In the presence of a son and a grandson Mst. Dhanni cannot be considered to be a successor of the deceased Dhannis husband and her son specially when her sons wife is alive and grandson is living with her. When Mst. Dhanni is not the rightful heir to the deceased persons nor she herself cultivated the land she could not claim the land in the presence of the legal heirs who alone are entitled to claim it. The Anti-Ejectment Officer therefore, wrongly accepted the application of Mst. Dhanni and I would with the concurrence of my learned colleague, accept the revision application and set aside the order passed by the Anti-Ejectment Officer and dismiss the application for reinstatement filed by Mst. Dhanni. K. S. Ranawat—I concur.