JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an order of the Additional District Collector, Ganjam, dated 1-10-1959, passed by him in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction u/s 15 of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act. 2. It is admitted that the opposite party is a ?tenant? as defined in the aforesaid Act, the total area of land taken on tenancy being 2.86 acres. The findings of all the lower courts are that on about 2 cents out of the aforesaid area of 2.86 acres a brick kiln was raised by the tenant. The O.T.R. Collector and the appellate authority held that by thus raising a brick kilo on that portion of the total land the tenant was liable for eviction u/s 9(1) (e) of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act in as much as he had used that area for non-agricultural purposes. The revisional court however held that the raising of a brick kiln on such a negligible portion of the total area would not be itself suffice to justify the finding that the land was used for non-agricultural purpose. Hence he set aside the order of the lower revenue authorities and directed that the tenant should be allowed to remain on the land. 3. In my opinion the Court of Revision took a reasonable view. As pointed out by a Division Bench of this Court in Durga Madhab Pattajoshi 9'. Somenath Ravulo and Ors. 24 C.L.T. 475, there is no right on the part of a landlord to evict a tenant for contravention of any of the provisions of Section 7 of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act which corresponds to Section 9 of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act. The eviction of a tenant is entirely a matter of discretion with the Revenue officer and even if a ground is made out for eviction, as mentioned in the aforesaid sections, there may be special circumstances where, in exercise of his discretion the Revenue authority may refuse to evict a tenant. It was also pointed out in that decision that in exercising revisional powers under the said Act the revisional Court has got equal jurisdiction with the lower authorities and its powers are not circumscribed by the limitations imposed by Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was also pointed out in that decision that in exercising revisional powers under the said Act the revisional Court has got equal jurisdiction with the lower authorities and its powers are not circumscribed by the limitations imposed by Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this case, therefore, when the Court of Revision thought that in view of the small fraction of the total land that was used for raising brick kilns it was not proper to evict the tenant we cannot say that the discretion was exercised improperly or that a wrong view of the law was taken by the revisional Court. We see therefore no reason for interference in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The petition is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 32/- (Rupees thirty-two). Das, J. 4. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed