Sharma, J.—This is an application by Beeramdass under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or certio-rari or any other writ or direction. It arises under the following circumstances, The opposite party No. 2, Daluram made an application under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Tenants Protection Ordinance for his reinstatement over certain agricultural land. The applicant opposed the application but the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhunjhunu allowed the application and ordered the reinstatement of Daluram. Beeram-dass went in revision to the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan. This revision application was allowed and further enquiry was ordered. The Sub-Divisional Officer, after some additional enquiry, again allowed the application. A revision application was filed against this order and the Revenue Board by its judgment dated 20th August, 1951, upheld the order of reinstatement made by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The applicant Beeram-dass now comes to this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. We have heared the learned counsel for the applicant. He has not been able to show that the Board of Revenue either acted beyond jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction. He has also not been able to point out that there has been any patent illegality in the judgment. The Revenue Board has held on evidence-produced that Daluram was in occupation of the property in dispute on the 1st of April, 1948 and that he was dispossessed thereafter. Sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Tenants Protection Ordinance lays down that if a tenant is in occupation of some land on the 1st of April, 1948, but has been dispossessed thereafter, he will be entitled to reinstatement if he makes an application within three months from the date of dispossession or from the date of coming into force of Ordinance, whichever is later. In the present case, the Revenue Board has taken the two important conditions required by sec. 7, into consideration and the judgment is based on evidence. Under Art. 226, this Court can not exercise powers of an appellate court and it is not for it to say whether the evidence was sufficient for finding on these two points in favour of the tenant or not. The application has no force and it is dismissed.