(1) ONE Mahadeo Prasad was the owner of lands which form the subject-matter of these appeals. He filed an application under Section 9(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 for eviction of the respondents herein, who were his tenants. An order was passed on 20-9-1968 by the Assistant Collector in which a condition was imposed that the tenants should be resettled on areas equal to the areas in their possession. The order was executed and possession was handed over to the owner on 27-10-1969. (2) ONE of the tenants filed a suit in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ferozepur for declaration that the order of the Collector was not valid and for a declaration that he continued to be a tenant in possession. But during the pendency of that suit, he admitted that he was not in possession of the land. On recording the said admission the suit was dismissed. The respondents herein took possession of the land once again on 17-5-1970. (3) MAHADEO Prasad had sold the land to the appellants herein on 11-6-1973. The respondents filed suits for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the possession of the land. According to the plaintiffs in those suits they were tenants in possession and could not be evicted except in due course of law. The trial Judge held that the plaintiffs were tenants continuing in possession and granted decrees for injunction. On appeal it was held that the plaintiffs were not tenants but trespassers. Yet, it was held that till they were evicted in due course of law they were entitled to decrees for injunction restraining the owner from interfering with their possession. (4) PURSUANT to that judgment, the appellants filed the present suits for recovery of possession. The trial Judge held that the respondents were tenants and not trespassers and dismissed the suits. On appeal the District Judge held that the finding in the earlier proceedings that the respondents were trespassers would operate as res judicata. He found also as a fact that the respondents were dispossessed in execution of the order of eviction passed by the Assistant Collector and they ceased to be tenants. (5) THAT judgment was challenged in second appeal. On appeal the District Judge held that the finding in the earlier proceedings that the respondents were trespassers would operate as res judicata. He found also as a fact that the respondents were dispossessed in execution of the order of eviction passed by the Assistant Collector and they ceased to be tenants. (5) THAT judgment was challenged in second appeal. The contention raised by the appellants in the High Court was that dispossession was in pursuance of an order passed by a Magistrate who had no jurisdiction in the matter and therefore, such dispossession was a nullity. The High Court accepted that contention of the appellants and held that there was no valid execution of the warrants of possession as against the appellants and it was only a sham transaction and that the respondents herein continued to be in possession. The High Court also held that the finding in the earlier suit could not operate as res judicata. On such findings, the second appeal was allowed. (6) IN these appeals, two questions are urged first with regard to res judicata and the second with regard to the decision of the High Court that there was no valid dispossession. In the view we are taking on the second question it is unnecessary for us to consider the first. The District Judge has found, after accepting the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, that after the ejectment orders were passed against the defendants they were dispossessed on 27-10-1969. Sufficient evidence was placed before the court to show that the tenants were actually dispossessed. The kanungo had given evidence and he filed in the court the daily diary register maintained by the patwari. The report of the patwari shows that possession was handed over. (7) IT is the case of the appellants that alternative lands were allotted to the respondents but they refused to take possession. In support of that case some additional documents have been placed before us and the applications for filing additional evidence had been allowed by this Court on 11-2-1988. Apart from the presumption that official acts were performed regularly, the evidence in this case which was accepted by the District Judge proves that the respondents were evicted validly in accordance with the order of eviction. There was no justification for the High Court to hold that the dispossession was not valid but a sham transaction. Apart from the presumption that official acts were performed regularly, the evidence in this case which was accepted by the District Judge proves that the respondents were evicted validly in accordance with the order of eviction. There was no justification for the High Court to hold that the dispossession was not valid but a sham transaction. Once as a fact it is found that there was dispossession of the tenants by executing the order of eviction, the relationship of landlord and tenant ceased to exist. The respondents were in possession only as trespassers. Hence, they are not entitled to resist these suits for possession. (8) IN Rikhi Ram v. Ram Kumar a Bench of three Honble Judges held that if an order of eviction is passed under Section 9(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, the relationship of landlord and tenant ceased to exist between the parties and there was no necessity for dispossession in execution of the said order. This is an a fortiori case as the respondents were also dispossessed in execution of such order. According to the learned counsel that decision will not apply in the present case as it was confined to a claim of pre-emption made by the tenant under the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The proposition of law laid down by the Bench is not confined to a case of pre-emption but it only sets out the legal effect of an order of eviction passed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. (9) WE have no difficulty in holding that in the present case the respondents were trespassers as found by the District Court. The decree passed by the District Court is well founded. The High Court is not justified in interfering with the said decree. Hence, these appeals are allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court dated 1-2-1978 is restored. There will be no order as to costs.