This is a revision against the order of the Munsif No. 1 of Sojat. The facts of the case, as can be gathered from the plaint, are as under: — 2. There is a well, known as Kosita, at Sojat which was in the Bapi of Naraindas, Sampatraj and others. It was cultivated by Pokar son of Kesa, Jaga, Laccha and Pokar son of Magna. The Bapidars decided to sell their interest and on 20th January 1949, the cultivators are alleged to have agreed to give up possession on 1st May 1949 to anybody who may purchase the rights of the Bapidars. The Bapidars sold their interest for Rs. l0,500/-to the aforesaid Pokar son of Kesa, Jaga and Bhanka on 26th April 1949. The present suit was brought on 9th May 1949 by the aforesaid purchasers of Bapi rights against the other two cultivators Lachhman and Pokar son of Magna on the allegations that they were trespassers having vacated the land in accordance with the agreement of 20th January 1949 and re-entered thereafter. 3. The defendants submitted a petition that under the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance (No. IX of 19**9) the suit should be stayed. The learned Munsif accepted the prayer of the defendants. Hence this revision. 4. It was contended that the Ordinance applied only in respect of suits between the landholders and tenants but as the defendants were trespassers, they were not entitled to the benefit of this Ordinance and in the alternative, it was also prayed that an allegation for the land being put to waste by the defendants should have been gone into. 5. The relevant provision of the Ordinance is contained in Section 5 which lays down that, " All suits, appeals, revisions, references, applications and proceedings, for the ejectment of tenants, pending on the date of the commencement of this Ordinance, shall be temporarily consigned to records." 6. The word tenant" has been defined in Section 2 clause (viii) as a person by whom rent is, or, would be, payable but is stated not to include a trespasser. Trespasser is defined as a person, who takes possession of uno:cupied land without authority or who prevents another person from occupying land duly let out to him. The word tenant" has been defined in Section 2 clause (viii) as a person by whom rent is, or, would be, payable but is stated not to include a trespasser. Trespasser is defined as a person, who takes possession of uno:cupied land without authority or who prevents another person from occupying land duly let out to him. Section 4 lays down that no tenant shall be liable to ejectment or dispossession from the whole or any part of his holding in Rajasthan on any ground whatsoever so long as the Ordinance remains in force, This Ordinance was promulgated on the 21st day of June 1949 with a view to put a check on the growing tendency of landholders to dispossession or ejectment of tenants from holdings and in the wider national interest of increasing the production of food-grains according to the preamble of the Ordinance. 7. The argument of the learned advocate for the appellants is that the defendants having agreed to vacate the land on the 1st May 1949 under their agreement of 20th January 1949 were in the position of trespassers from the 1st of May 1949. The alleged agreement has been produced by the plaintiffs and the relevant portion is as follows: — "The Kosita well is in the Bapi of Sampatraj. The value of Arath is Rs. 1500/-. An auction is to be held of the well including the Arath and one years rent has been remitted to the cultivators. If the bid is knocked in the name of somebody else, the present cultivators agree that they would give possession to the purchasers on Baisakh Sud 3. (1st May 1949). The last bid was of Jaga for Rs. 21,000/- but Bhana, Pokar son of Kesa and Lachhman son of Kesa and Jaga son of Ganesh were declared the final purchasers for Rs. 20,000/- which sum was to be paid within one month." It was alleged by the plaintiffs that Pokar son of Magna and Lachhman son of Kesa did not subsequently agree to take the Bapi rights of the Bapidars sold their rights and the plaintiffs Pokar son of Kesa, Jaga son of Ganesh and Bhanka for Rs. 10,500/- on 26th April 1949. It is apparent that the agreement, if any, was to vacate the land if the sale was by public auction and knocked to a stranger. 10,500/- on 26th April 1949. It is apparent that the agreement, if any, was to vacate the land if the sale was by public auction and knocked to a stranger. Since the sale which was agreed to by all parties on 20th January 1949 in favour of the four cultivators and Bhanka, was not carried through and a fresh private sale was made in favour of the plaintiffs, they were not entitled to take advantage of the earlier agreement to vacate the land. It will be deemed to have fallen through along with the public sale. The defendants, therefore, continued to remain as tenants and the Ordinance was clearly applicable to this case. 8. Even assuming that the agree-ment purported to put an end to the status of the defendants as tenants from 1st May 1949, the agreement became unenforceable during the period that the Ordinance was to remain in force as by Section 3 it has been laid down that the provisions of the Ordinance shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law, rule, order, instrument or usage having the force of law in any part of Rajasthan. This provision relieved the defendants of their liability to eviction after the Ordinance came into force. The definition of trespasser in this Ordinance is limited to a person who took possession of unoccupied land without authority or who prevented anchor person from occupying land duly let out to him. The defendants do not come in the first category since the commencement of their possession was lawful under the authority of the Bapidars, and there could not be a due letting to another tenant until they had surrendered their holding or were dispossessed under due process of law. The allegation that the defendants had surrendered their holding and had re-entered is vague since no date of surrender or re-entry is mentioned. It is inconsistent with the rest of the plaint and is obviously an afterthought, 9. It may be observed that the word tenant in sections 4 and 5 would include an ex-tenant since so long as the relationship of landlord and tenant exists, no question of ejectment arises and it is only when the tenancy is determined in Various ways provided by law that a suit against an ex-tenant is maintainable. It may be observed that the word tenant in sections 4 and 5 would include an ex-tenant since so long as the relationship of landlord and tenant exists, no question of ejectment arises and it is only when the tenancy is determined in Various ways provided by law that a suit against an ex-tenant is maintainable. The Ordinance would in my opinion, protect all persons who lawfully entered into possession as tenants at the time of commencement of their possession and did not become trespassers as defined in the Ordinance. 10. The next argument that a suit for ejectment is maintainable on the ground of any act done by the tenant detrimental to the land in that holding remains to be examined. The only act ascribed to the defendants is that they were not putting manure on the field. The omission to put manure would only lead to lesser returns in the crop and there can be no detriment to the land itself. That ground also fails. The lower court has rightly consigned the case to records and this revision fails and is dismissed.