Ranawat, J. - (1.) THIS is an application of one Harchand under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India against a judgment of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue, dated the 8th November 1951, by which a decree of the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Deeg, was set aside regarding ejectment of the opposite party, Arami.
(2.) HARCHAND filed a suit in the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deeg, for ejectment of Arami on the allegation that Arami had failed to pay rents for his holding for which the landlord had obtained a decree and that on this ground he was liable to be ejected. The Sub-Divisional Officer accepted the argument of the petitioner and passed a decree for the ejectment of Arami. No appeal, it appears, was filed by any one of the parties to the suit against the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer. A revision application was moved by Arami in the court of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and the Board, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, quashed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. In this application it has been pleaded that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to set aside the decree passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction either under sec. 10(2) of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance or under sec. 26 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, it is said, was not made under the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance and sec. 10(2) therefore had no application to this case. Similarly, the decree passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was appealable and a second appeal lay to the Board of Revenue, and as no appeal had been filed against the decree of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Rajasthan Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction under sec. 26 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act. It is also contended that the observations of the Revenue Board regarding enunciation of the ordinary law relating to ejectment is not proper and that even under the Tenants Protection Ordinance a tenant is liable to ejectment on his failure to pay rent. It is true that as the decree passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deeg, was not made under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenants Protection Ordinance the Revenue Board had no jurisdiction to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under sec. 10 (2) of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance. It is also correct to say that under sec. 26 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Procedure and Jurisdiction Act the Board of Revenue had no power to revise a decree passed by a subordinate Revenue Court in cases where an appeal lies to the Board itself. In this case it is conceded that a second appeal lay, under sec. 20 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act against the decree passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, to the Board of Revenue. In the meaning of sec. 26 second appeal is included in the word "appeal". Where a second appeal lies to the Board of Revenue the Board has no revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, it is evident that the Board of Revenue had no revisional powers under sec. 27 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act to set aside the decree passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in the present case. We are, however, referred to sec. 12 of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue Ordinance 1949 (XXII of 1949) which provides that the general superintendence and control over all other revenue courts and officers shall be vested in and all such courts and officers shall be subordinate to the Board. According to the provisions of this section powers of superintendence have been vested in the Board and it is open to the Board to exercise its powers of superintendence over all its subordinate courts in order to regulate the functions of the subordinate courts so as to keep them within their respective spheres of jurisdiction. If a subordinate court disregards any specific provision of law and does something illegally, it is open to the Board of Revenue to interfere and to set the matters right. The Sub-Divisional Officer in the present case disregarded the provisions of sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance which provides that so long as it is in force in, any area of Rajasthan no tenant shall be liable to ejectment or dispossession from the whole or a part of his holding on any ground whatsoever. There are two exceptions to this which are specified in Sub-clause (2). The case of the petitioner was not covered by any of these exceptions. Mr. Pannalal has vehemently argued that the case of the petitioner was covered by the provisions of sub-clause(2) (i) of sec. 4. It may be pointed out that sub-sec. (2) (i) of sec. 4 of the Protection of Tenants Ordinance a tenant is liable to ejectment if his holding is sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent. In the present case, there is no question of the execution of the decree for arrears of rent. The petitioner has filed his suit on the ground that the tenant made a default in the payment of his rents and the landlord was therefore entitled to eject him. Such a case obviously does not fall within the scope of the aforesaid exception to sec. 4. In a suit of the nature that has been filed by the petitioner it was not open to the Sub-Divisional Officer to pass a decree for ejectment because of the provisions of sec. 4 of the Protection of Tenants Ordinance. The Sub-Divisional Officer, in clear disregard of the provisions of sec. 4 of the Protection of Tenants Ordinance, passed a decree for the ejectment of the tenant. He misconstrued the meaning of sub-clause 2(i) of sec. 4 of the Protection of Tenants Ordinance. This amounted to an illegality in the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Revenue Board could in exercise of its powers of superintendence take cognizance of the case and correct the mistakes of its subordinate court so that the subordinate court could be made to function within the scope of its jurisdiction. The decision made by the Revenue Board can be justified only under sec. 12 of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue Ordinance of 1949. It is not necessary to examine the logic of the decision of the Board of Revenue here. The Board instead of holding that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was hit by sec. 4 of the Protection of Tenants Ordinance thought that it was in contravention of sec. 6 of the Protection of Tenants Ordinance. Sec. 6 of the Protection of Tenants Ordinance relates to the execution of such decrees and orders as were pending at the date of the commencement of the Ordinance. It has no application to the case, in which a decree is passed in a suit instituted after the coming into force of the Tenants Protection Ordinance. However, the position does not change. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was in contravention of the provisions of sec. 4 and it was therefore illegal. In the result the decision of the Board of Revenue does not appear to be wrong. Mr. Ram Avtar has appeared on behalf of the Board of Revenue and has opposed this application. This application is, under the circumstances given above, dismissed. We will, not make an order as to costs.;