ORDER S. Rajan, Member The facts of the case are given in the order dated 31-5-1963 of the learned Additional Commissioner. In brief the only point to be decided in this case is how the applicants, before the Board of Revenue, namely, Satyanarain and Ors. are to be ejected from the lands in question. As will be shown below the net result of the numerous orders passed by the various authorities is that the order dated 5-1-1953 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner stands confirmed. The order dated 5-1-1953 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner mentioned above was confirmed is appeal by the Commissioner in his order dated 16-1-1954. The order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner was, however, set aside by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 24-6-1955. Lal Rama Govind Singh, made an application to Judicial Commissioner, Rewa, who by his order dated 6-8-1956 set aside the order dated 24-6-1955 of the Board of Revenue and remanded the case for further consideration and disposal. The Board of Revenue again reconsidered the matter and by its order dated 13-6-1957 confirmed the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner. Satyanarain and Ors. made an application for review to the Board of Revenue who rejected this application for review. Saty-anarain and Ors. then made a writ petition to the High Court which dismissed it. So as already mentioned above the order dated 5-1-1953 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner stands in the field and it is this order which has to be complied with. Now the question is how the order dated 5-1-1953 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner is to be complied with. The Additional Deputy Commissioner has ordered that Satyanarain and Ors. should be ejected from the lands in question. The question is how Satyanarain and Ors. are to be ejected. I will show below that Section 129 of the Rewa Land Revenue and Tenancy Code, 1935 (hereinafter called the Rewa Code) gives precisely the manner in which the ejectment should be made. Section 129 occurs in Chapter IV of the Rewa Code which deals with the subject of tenants. No other Chapter in the Rewa Code deals with the subject of tenants. The Chapter deals not only with the three classes of tenants mentioned in Section 40 of the Rewa Code but it also deals with sub-tenants (vide Section 58 of the Rewa Code). No other Chapter in the Rewa Code deals with the subject of tenants. The Chapter deals not only with the three classes of tenants mentioned in Section 40 of the Rewa Code but it also deals with sub-tenants (vide Section 58 of the Rewa Code). In Section 4 of the Rewa Code the word "sub-tenant" is defined as follows: "Sub-tenant" means a tenant who holds land from a person possessing therein only the interest of a tenant; and shall be deemed to include the tenant of pawaidar or sub-pawaidar's sir." In the above quotation the first four words namely "sub-tenant means a tenant are important and deserve notice. So from this it appears that a sub-tenant is a special type of tenant belonging to a sub-class of the general class of tenants. A sub-tenant of a sub-tenant will also be a sub-tenant according to the above definition. A sub-tenant is a person possessing only the interest of a tenant and so person who holds land from a sub-tenant would also be a sub-tenant. Hence as Satyanarain and Ors. were sub-tenants of the sub-tenant Lal Harparkhat Singh they are also sub-tenants. In Chapter IV of the Rewa Code the part dealing with the subject of ejectment begins with Section 129 and continues up to Section 136. In the contents of the Rewa Code with respect to Section 129 is written- 129. General provisions relating to ejectment....75. Thus Section 129 is of general application and applies to the ejectment of all tenants whether they are those mentioned in Section 40 of the Rewa Code or whether they are sub-tenants. It is a mistake to think that Section 134 of the Rewa Code gives the procedure for all types of ejectment as it only gives the procedure to be followed in some special cases. Section 129 of the Rewa Code is of general application and applies to the ejectment of all kinds of tenants including sub-tenants. The Additional Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 5-1-1953 ordered that Satyanarain and Ors. should be ejected. The word 'ejected' is a technical legal term and has to be understood as that type of dispossession contemplated in Section 129 of the Rewa Code. The Additional Deputy Commissioner could very well have written in his order that Satyanarain and Ors. The Additional Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 5-1-1953 ordered that Satyanarain and Ors. should be ejected. The word 'ejected' is a technical legal term and has to be understood as that type of dispossession contemplated in Section 129 of the Rewa Code. The Additional Deputy Commissioner could very well have written in his order that Satyanarain and Ors. should be ejected in the manner provided in Section 129 of the Rewa Code, but this really is not necessary and will be in fact a superfluity. On 5-1-1953 the Rewa Code was in force as the V.P. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1953 came into force only on 1-4-55. When the Additional Deputy Commissioner on 5-1-1953 ordered that Satyanarain and Ors. should be ejected the order naturally implies that the ejectment should be according to the provisions of the Rewa Code then in force and even though the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner does not explicitly mention that ejectment should be according to Section 129 of the Rewa Code it does not matter at all and the word "eject" appearing in the order of Additional Deputy Commissioner has the meaning "eject in accordance with Section 129 of the Rewa Code". Hence the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner was that Satyanarain and Ors. should be ejected according to Section 129 of the Rewa Code and it is this order which has to be complied with. When the original order is passed in a case the case no longer remains pending. There may be appeals, revisions etc. but these are all separate proceedings which adjudicate whether the original order was correct or not and what modification should be made in it if it is not correct. Simply because appeals, revisions etc. are filed it does not mean that the original case remains pending during the periods of appeal and revision. According to the above principle the original case was disposed of on 5-1-1953 and all subsequent proceedings were for the purpose of finding out whether this order dated 5-1-1953 is correct or not. Now it has been finally decided that the order dated 5-1-1953 is correct. So simply because there were appeals etc. after 5-1-1953 it does Dot mean that the case remained pending at the commencement of the V.P. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1953. Now it has been finally decided that the order dated 5-1-1953 is correct. So simply because there were appeals etc. after 5-1-1953 it does Dot mean that the case remained pending at the commencement of the V.P. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1953. So Section 228 (3) of the V.P. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act has no application here. In fact no provision of the V.P. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act applicable to the present case as the order dated 5-1-1653 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner is to be interpreted in the light of the provisions of the Rewa Code. According to Clause (d) of the first proviso in Section 261 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called the M.P. Code) any remedy may be enforced as if the M.P. Code had not been passed. The net result of the above reasoning is that compliance of the order dated 5-1-1953 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner has to be done according to Section 129 of the Rewa Code. The order dated 2-7-1962 of the Sub-Divisional Officer is set aside and the orders of the Naib-Tahsildar dated 2-4-1962 and of the Additional Commissioner dated 31-5-1963 are modified to the extent mentioned above. The ejectment of Satyanarain and Ors. shall be carried out in the light of the remarks made above in this order.