This is an application in revision under Sec. 10(2) of Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer Mandalgarh dated 27.5.54 granting protection to the opposite-party under Sec. 7 of the Ordinance. 2. The circumstances which give rise to this revision application are that the opposite party, Mangiya, lodged an application in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Mandalgarh against applicants No. 1 and 2 and also against one Shri Mohraj and Shri Dhanraj, now one of the opposite-party, for reinstatement over araji No. 37 measuring 2 bighas 14 biswas in village Hoda in Tehsil Mandalgarh. The case was decided exparte by the Sub divisional Officer on 25.1.54 in favour of Shri Mangiya. On 27.1.54 the applicants filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer for setting aside the ex parte order which was however, rejected by him on 27.5.54 holding that there were no sufficient grounds for setting aside the ex parte order. The applicants have now come in revision before me. 3. I have heard the counsel for the applicants and the non-applicant Mangiya in person and have also gone through the record of the case. The only point which has been pressed by the counsel of the applicants in that the land under dispute is bir, i.e. grass land, and as such it does not come within the purview of section 7 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance. I have carefully considered this plea of the applicant. The land under dispute is no doubt bir or grass land, but it has been entered in the name of the opposite-party, Shri Mangiya as tenant and who was in occupation thereof before he was ejected therefrom by the applicants. When the land is entered in the name of a person as Khatedar, the land becomes his holding. It is immaterial whether the non applicant allows grass to grow over it or reaps any harvest over it. When the land is entered in the name of a person as Khatedar, the land becomes his holding. It is immaterial whether the non applicant allows grass to grow over it or reaps any harvest over it. Section 7 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance lays down that— "any tenant who is in occupation of his holding on or after the first day of April, 1948 and has thereafter been ejected therefrom, or dispossessed thereof or from or any part thereof, (a) before the commencement of this Ordinance, other-wise than by process of law, or (b) after the commencement of this Ordinance, in contravention of the provisions thereof, may, within three months from the date of such ejectment or dispossession on the commencement of this Ordinance, which ever happens to be latter, apply to the Sub-Divisional Officer or other officer of equal status for his reinstatement in such holding or part as the case may be. 4. On receipt of an application under Sub-sec. (1) the Sub-Divisional Officer............on being satisfied after summary enquiry as he may consider necessary that the applicant was ejected or dispossessed as aforesaid, order that the applicant be reinstated in such holding or part and that any other person in possession of it be ejected therefrom. Thus there is no mention in this section that the holding should be under crop cultivation. It is quite sufficient for a relief under this Ordinance that the tenant should be in the occupation of the holding. Since the opposite party was in occupation of the holding in question, the lower court was perfectly justified in giving protection to him (opposite party) and there is no force in this contention of the applicant. The application is hereby rejected.