ORDER R.C. Roy Poddar, President This is an application for revision against the order of the Addl. Commissioner, Bhopal Division, dated 26-2-64 in Appeal No. 352/62-63 under which he had rejected the second appeal of the applicants and upheld the decisions of the lower Courts ordering them u/s 193(2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 to pay Rs. 2,568.75 nP. plus the cost of proceedings to the non-applicants towards the arrears of rent of the occupancy land in question failing which their tenancy will be terminated. The annual rent of the land appears to be Rs. 600 in accordance with the terms of the sub-lease, and the non-applicant had sued for the recovery of the arrears of rent from the year 1362 Fasli onwards. The Learned Counsel for the applicants pressed the following three objections: (1) That the lower Courts have erred in holding that the law of limitation was not applicable to proceedings for the recovery of arrears of rent u/s 193 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1969; (2) That the interest of the non-applicant in the holding had been sold by him in March 1954 and he had no right to recover any rent from the applicants; and (3) That the applicants had acquired occupancy rights under the provisions of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and they are not liable to pay the rent for any year prior to the enforcement of the Code on 2-10-59. Regarding the sale of his interest in the land by the non-applicant, it is a question of fact and all the lower Courts have held that there is no evidence on record to show that the non-applicant had sold his interest or had ceased to be the Bhumiswami. The Learned Counsel also could not show me any such evidence on record. On the other hand, the lower Courts have found that the name of the non-applicant continues to appear in the village papers as the Bhumiswami of the land. This objection has therefore no merit and has to be rejected. As regards the applicability of the law of limitation, I agree with the lower Courts that where there is a specific provision in this regard in the Code itself, the general law of limitation will not be applicable. This objection has therefore no merit and has to be rejected. As regards the applicability of the law of limitation, I agree with the lower Courts that where there is a specific provision in this regard in the Code itself, the general law of limitation will not be applicable. The question, however, is whether there is or is not period of limitation prescribed in the provision of law under which this application was filed. The relevant provision of Section 193 of the Code under which the application was filed is as below: 193. Termination of tenancy - (I) The tenancy of an occupancy tenant in his holding shall be liable to termination by an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer made on any of the following grounds, namely: (a) He has failed to pay on or before due date in any agricultural year the rent of such land for that year; (2) No order for the termination of his rights in the land on the grounds specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) shall be passed unless the Sub-Divisional Officer has by a notice called upon the occupancy tenant to tender the rent due together with the cost of proceedings within such period as may be specified by the S.D. O. in the notice and the tenant has failed to deposit the required amount within the said period. This provision of law pertains to the termination of the tenancy of an occupancy tenant and the case of action for such termination arises, among other things, by the non-payment of rent before the due date. There is no limitation prescribed for an application under this section to be filed by the Bhumiswami for the termination of the tenancy of his occupancy tenant. It is not correct to describe an application under this section as application for the recovery of rent as such, and therefore the question of limitation cannot be related to the period for which the default in the payment of rent has continued. The contention of the Learned Counsel that the general law of limitation regarding the recovery of rent will be applicable to an application u/s 193 of the Code is not correct. This particular objection of the applicants also has therefore to be rejected. The contention of the Learned Counsel that the general law of limitation regarding the recovery of rent will be applicable to an application u/s 193 of the Code is not correct. This particular objection of the applicants also has therefore to be rejected. Coming now to the third objection of the applicants, I think this was not perhaps advanced in the proper way before any of the lower Courts and therefore they have not given any definite decision on this point. Properly put, the objection of the applicants seems to be that action u/s 193 can be taken against an occupancy tenant if he fails to pay the rent due to the Bhumiswami before the due date in any agricultural year. The applicants were not occupancy tenants before 2-10-58 and therefore no action could be taken under this provision of law for any default pertaining to any period before 2-10-59. I think this objection is not altogether without substance. A careful perusal of the provision in Section 193 will show that it provides for relief to the Bhumiswami by way of the termination of the tenancy of his occupancy tenant in the event of the failure on the part of the occupancy tenant to pay on or before the due date the rent of his occupancy land for the particular agricultural year. This section does not provide for the recovery of arrears of rent, and it would be wrong to take resort to this section for such a purpose. This section is meant for the termination of the tenancy of an occupancy tenant, and non-payment of rent is only one of the causes of action for such termination. Sub-section (2) is intended to a often down that harshness of the action by giving an alternative to an occupancy tenant to escape the rigour of the law by tendering the rent due together with the cost of proceedings. This, however, does not make it a provision for the recovery of arrears of rent. Under this provision of law all that the S.D.O. can legally do is to call upon the occupancy tenant to tender the rent due for the preceding agricultural year together with the cost of proceedings within such period as may be specified by him. This will obviously be only an interim order. Under this provision of law all that the S.D.O. can legally do is to call upon the occupancy tenant to tender the rent due for the preceding agricultural year together with the cost of proceedings within such period as may be specified by him. This will obviously be only an interim order. If in pursuance of that order, the occupancy tenant pays the rent, the only further order that need be passed in the case is to record this fact and close the proceedings. If the rent is not paid, then alone a final order has to be passed and that can only be to order the termination of the tenancy. Thus the order of the lower Courts calling upon the applicants to pay all the arrears of rent that the non-applicant claims to be due to him is not in accordance with the law under which they have assumed jurisdiction to pass such an order. If the non-applicant wanted to sue the applicants for the recovery of arrears of rent, he should have done so in the proper Court under the proper provision of law. An application u/s 193 of the Code does not entitle him to such a relief. In view of the above, the revision is allowed and the orders of all the lower Courts are set aside. The case is remanded to the S.D.O. for fresh decision in accordance with the law keeping in view the observations in the preceding paragraph. Final Result : Allowed