ORDER R.S. Shukla, Member This order will govern the disposal of Revisions Nos. 3277/59 and 1278/59 as in both of them the applicant is the same person and the point for determination is identical. The facts are that the applicant held possession of the disputed land under an unregistered mortgage deed. In the year 1944, proceedings for trespass under section 58 of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act were started against him, on the report of the patwari. The Tahsildar ejected the applicant with a fine and his order was upheld in successive appeals by the Collector and the Additional Commissioner. The main contention of the applicant in revision, as it was in the lower Court also, is that the mortgage being prior to the introduction of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950, neither section 58 nor section 78 of the said Act would apply in this case. As such the Tahsildar could not eject the applicant either under section 58 or under section 58 read with section 78 ibid. The learned counsel for the applicant brought to my notice the decision of the Board reported in 1955 Revenue Nirnaya, page 78, and Revenue Nirnaya, page 205. These two decisions are, unfortunately, self-contradictory. In the 1955 case it was held that an occupation, though prior to the commencement of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, can be removed under section 58 if it is found to be without lawful authority. In the 1956 case it was, however, held that in such cases section 58 would not apply. In Revision No. 75/58 decided on 10-8-59 the scope of section 58 again came up for consideration before the Board of Revenue and it was held that section 58 is applicable to unoccupied land belonging to the State, as also to such land in respect of which a person is deemed to be a trespasser under certain sections of the Tenancy Act, viz., sections 78, 86(3) and 91 etc. But this decision also does not seem fully to cover the point at issue in this case. It is obvious that section 78 cannot apply because this section deals with such unauthorised possessions as may be made subsequent to the enforcement of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950. But this decision also does not seem fully to cover the point at issue in this case. It is obvious that section 78 cannot apply because this section deals with such unauthorised possessions as may be made subsequent to the enforcement of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950. This is clear from the very commencing sentence of section 78 which reads as follows:- 78-Any person, who in contravention of the provisions of this Act, obtains possession of any land by virtue of a bequest, gift, sale, mortgage or sub-lease...... shall be deemed to be a trespasser and shall be liable to ejectment in accordance with the provisions of section 58 The word 'obtains' clearly makes this section prospective in nature and no action can be taken retrospectively against such mortgagee as may be in possession prior to the Act of 1950. Section 72 ibid deals with mortgages in general and lays down conditions which must be satisfied before a pucca tenant may mortgage his rights in the whole or in the part of this holding. Sub-section 9 of this section, however, says that "Nothing in the section shall affect the validity of a mortgage properly and legally executed prior to the commencement of this Act". Thus previous mortgages which were properly and legally executed are saved from the effect of the new provisions of sections 72 and 78. But both section 72 and 78 are silent about the previous mortgages that may not have been legally or properly executed. The question arises whether, in such a case, section 58 can be pressed into service. My answer to this is in the affirmative for the following reasons. Section 58 commences as follows: Any person who occupies land without lawful authority shall be regarded as a trespasser and may be dispossessed by Tahsildar any time...... It was argued that the word 'occupies' has reference only to future occupation and not to an occupation that may have been made prior to the commencement of the Act. It was pointed out that this reasoning is in line with the reasoning adopted above in the interpretation of the word "obtains" in section 78. Consequently section 58 will also apply to future trespasses and not to those made before the Act of 1950. It was pointed out that this reasoning is in line with the reasoning adopted above in the interpretation of the word "obtains" in section 78. Consequently section 58 will also apply to future trespasses and not to those made before the Act of 1950. In my opinion, this argument does not appear to be correct as there is a distinction between the phraseology of sections 78 and 58. The words "Any person, who in contravention of the provisions of this Act obtains land...... etc." occurring in section 78 do not find place in section 58. "The provisions of the Act" referred to in section 78 refer to the provisions contained in section 72 so far as transfer by mortgage is concerned. Section 72 lays down certain conditions before a mortgage may be made, and if these conditions are contravened, consequences enumerated in section 78 follow. Section 58 is, however, much wider in its scope. It deals with a person who occupies land without lawful authority. The word "occupies" in this section should be interpreted as unrelated to the time of initial occupation. Occupation of land may be temporary or a continuous process. If a person is found to be in occupation of a land without lawful authority in 1950, for instance, without a legal mortgage, he cannot but be described, subsequent to the enforcement of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act also, as a person who 'occupies' land without lawful authority. He may have commenced his occupation prior to 1950; but all the same he cannot get away from the fact that he would be described as occupying the same in 1950 and onward. Thus, in my opinion, if after the commencement of the Act a person is found in occupation of land without lawful authority, his conduct will fall within the mischief of section 58. Such a person may legitimately argue that his initial occupation was lawful, being in accordance with the law that existed when he commenced his occupation, and if he proves this, he would certainly be saved; but he cannot argue that although his occupation commenced without lawful authority, he cannot be ousted because his initial occupation was prior to the passing of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act. There is nothing in the Tenancy Act to save such prior unlawful occupations. There is nothing in the Tenancy Act to save such prior unlawful occupations. I have already referred to section 72(2), which saves only legally and properly executed mortgages made prior to the commencement to the Tenancy Act. My conclusion, therefore, is that a person who is found to be occupying land on the strength of a unregistered mortgage deed, a document which was originally void ab initio in accordance with the then existing law, cannot escape the operation of section 58 unless the Tenancy Act were specifically to validate such illegal possessions. In this view the Tehsildar was justified in the instant case to oust the applicant under section 58 of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act. For reasons stated above, revision application has no force and is dismissed accordingly. Petition dismissed