JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order of the Additional Collector of Ganjam reversing the appellate order of the Sub-Collector of Berhampur and restoring the order of the O.T.R. Act Officer directing the eviction of the Petitioner from the disputed property for non-payment of raja bhagam for the year 1956-57. The Petitioner was admittedly a bhagchassi of opposite party No. 1. The latter filed an application u/s 9(1) of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act, before the said O.T.R. Act Officer for eviction of the Petitioner for non-payment of bhag rent. When the case was taken up for hearing the Petitioner was absent and therefore the learned O.T.R. Act Officer, on the exparte evidence of the landlord held that there was non-payment of bhag rent for the year in question and that the Petitioner was liable to be evicted. On appeal the learned appellate officer set aside the order of the O.T.R. Act Officer observing that even though the Petitioner was absent, he should have been given an opportunity to explain his absence. He further held that default in payment of bhag rent was not shown to be mala fide. The question of mala fide or bona fide so far as default in payment of bhag rent is concerned is not very material except on the limited question of exercise of discretion by the O.T.R. Act Officer in passing the order of eviction. The learned Court of Revision therefore had no difficulty in setting aside the order of the learned appellate court on the admitted position that the bhag rent for 1956-57 was not paid. 2. Mr. Panda for the Petitioner relied mainly on the question of limitation. He urged that the application u/s 9(1) of the Orissa Tenants Relief act was filed beyond the time limit of 60 days from the date of dispute as required by the proviso to that sub-section. We are not satisfied that the question of Limitation arises as an error of law apparent on the face of the record so as to justify our interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. This question does not appear to have been raised before the Court of Revision. There is no finding by any of the Courts as to what was the date on which the dispute arose. Mr. This question does not appear to have been raised before the Court of Revision. There is no finding by any of the Courts as to what was the date on which the dispute arose. Mr. Panda however contended that the judgment of the Court of Revision shows that the Petitioner had sent a registered notice to the landlord in April 1957 and that the date of that notice must be taken to be the date on which the dispute arose. Such an argument cannot be permitted to be taken, for the first time before this Court. This matter will require elaborate investigation into facts and examination of the question as to how far the statements made by the opposite party in his application before the O.T.R. Act Officer to the effect that the dispute arose only about one month prior to the date of his application, is correct. This cannot be held to be am error of law, apparent on the face of the record, as laid down by the Supreme Court in many cases including the recent case reported in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and Others Vs. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, . 3. We have therefore no hesitation in dismissing this application with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty only). Misra, J. 4. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed