JUDGMENT : Panigrahi, C.J. - O.J.C. No. 43 of 1953 is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ and is directed against an order dated 4-3-53 passed by Shri V. Ramanathsn, Member, Board of Revenue, in Revision cases Nos. 118 to 116 of 1952-53. O.J.C. No. 44 of 1953 is also directed against the same order, but by different party. These two Petitioners filed applications before the Collector praying for the eviction of the tenants from the lands which they (the Petitioners) had recent by purchased from a 'ryot'. The admitted facts are that the opposite parties were tenants under a "ryot" owning more than 33 acres of land on 30-11-47. The Petitioners purchased a few plots from him in March and April 1952 and sought eviction of the tenants from the plots purchased by him. The further admitted fact is that he Petitioners neither owned on 30-11-47, nor own now, 33 acres of land or more. The point for decision is whether the tenants in respect of these lands are entitled protection under any of the provisions of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act. 2. The legislature wanted to provide for temporary protection to certain classes of tenants, by Orissa Act III of 1948, but certain other classes of tenants were also excluded from the benefits of that Act. These are enumerated in Sub-clauses (i) (ii) and (iii) of Sub-section (g) of Section 2, which is the definition Section. That Sub-section says that a tenant shall not include (1) a member of that person's family, or (2) a servant or hired labourer, and (3) a person cultivating the land of a ryot when the total extent of the land in the possession of such a ryot on 30-11-47, did not exceed thirty- three acres. This Sub-section however makes an exception in the case of such a ryot in the application of Sections 6, 7, 8 and 10 and thus gives a qualified protection, to a tenant. The result is that the tenant of each ryot namely, one who owns less than thirty-three acres on 30-11-47 cannot be evicted except on one or more of the grounds enumerated in Section 7(1), Sub-clauses (a) to (e). The result is that the tenant of each ryot namely, one who owns less than thirty-three acres on 30-11-47 cannot be evicted except on one or more of the grounds enumerated in Section 7(1), Sub-clauses (a) to (e). The general rule prohibiting eviction is to be found in Section 3 of the Act, which lays down that a person who was cultivating the land as a tenant on 1-9-47 shall not be liable to eviction; but this protection against eviction is subject to the provisions of this Act. Section 3(2) contemplates eviction in execution of a decree or order for eviction, and says that no such tenant as satisfies the definition of the word 'tenant' shall be liable to be evicted in pursuance of a decree or order for eviction except to the extent that the Act provides for it. The effect of this Sub-section is to protect the tenants who are governed by the Act against eviction in execution of a decree of order, as separate provision has been made in the Act itself to cover cases of eviction on other grounds. By Orissa Act XVII of 1951 the Legislature introduced certain amendments to the Act and our attention has been drawn to Clause 3 of the Amending Act. That Section introduced an illustration to Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the original Act. That illustration says: Illustration 'A' holds land under 'B' a raiyat, who has less than 33 acres of land on the 30th of November 1947. 'B' can evict 'A'.? This illustration merely emphasises the obvious. A tenant under a ryot who owns less than 33 acres of land on 30-11-47 can be evicted even under the Section as originally stood, but the Legislature thought it fit to make the position clear by an illustration. Section 7 of the original Act was also amended and a new clause was inserted as (f) to Section 7(1). That clause reads as follows: (f) liability of a tenant to eviction on the ground that he is holding land under a ryot the total extent of the land in whose possession on 30th November 1947 did not exceed 33 acres. That clause reads as follows: (f) liability of a tenant to eviction on the ground that he is holding land under a ryot the total extent of the land in whose possession on 30th November 1947 did not exceed 33 acres. The addition of this new clause indica tea that a dispute between a landlord and a tenant regarding the liability of a tenant for eviction on the ground that the landlord does not possess more than 33 acres is now cognizable by the Collector and such person is liable to eviction under Clause (f) by the Collector. It is accordingly contended by Mr. Dasgupta that whatever controversy there might have been previously as to the liability of such tenant to be evicted there can be no room for any such controversy, after the passing of the Amending Act. It is quite clear now that a tenant under a petty landlord (that is one who owns less than 33 acres of and, is not entitled to any protection against eviction, It was also printed out to us in support of this contention that there are no fetters on the powers of the 'landlord' & to transfer his holding, or a part thereof; nor is the tenant bound to take advantage of the protection given by the Act and remain on the land it is open to him either to surrender his Tenancy or a part of his Tenancy. The privilege at lorded to him is purely personal and is not descendible to his heirs nor transferable to strangers. It is therefore urged that the relations between landlord and tenant being reciprocal, what is available & to the tenant should also be available to the landlord, and that the landlord is therefore entitled to transfer his holding and that, in such a case, if the new landlord happens to be one who owns less than 38 acres the tenant looses the protection given to him by the Act. This reasoning appears to us to be in harmony with the spirit and language of the Act, particularly in view of the clarifications made by the later amendments. 3. The Board of Revenue took the view that what the new purchaser obtained from his vendor was not only the right to hold the land but also the liability to maintain the tenant on those lands. 3. The Board of Revenue took the view that what the new purchaser obtained from his vendor was not only the right to hold the land but also the liability to maintain the tenant on those lands. It is difficult to appreciate this line of reasoning. It appears to us that the Legislature while trying to give protection to tenants was also providing protection to petty ryots, that is, those who did not own 33 acres of land and yet had let out the lands to Bhagchassis. We do not see anything unreasonable in this construction of the Act. On the other hand, we are satisfied, on an examination of the language and the resulting equitable treatment given to both the landlord and tenant, that is the true intendment of the Legislature. 4. We would accordingly allow this application set aside the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, under revision, and issue a writ or certiorari quashing those orders. We further direct that the landlord shall be put in possession of the lands after evicting the tenants. The landlord shall also have the cost of this application. Hearing fee Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty only). Rao, J. 5. I agree.