Order.- This Civil Revision Petition raises a question of some importance. The respondent-landlord filed a petition under section 3 (4) (a) for evicting the petitioner. He alleged that the petitioner was in arrears of rent for faslis 1363, 1364, 1365, 1366 and 1367. The Revenue Court found that the petitioner was in arrears for faslis 1363 to 1367 in a total sum of Rs. 1,384.68. Giving credit to a sum of Rs. 551.24 already paid by the petitioner, the Revenue Court directed the petitioner to pay the balance of Rs. 833.44. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revenue Court is not entitled to direct the payment of arrears of rent which fell due three years before the date of application. It was contended that the landlord cannot in a civil suit obtain a decree for arrears of rent which were due for more than three years prior to the date of the suit, as any such claim would be barred under the Limitation Act. The Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act confers on the cultivating tenant a right to continue in possession and no cultivating tenant shall be evicted from his holding during the continuance of the Act at the instance of the landlord except under the provisions of this Act. Section 3 (2) (aa) provides that sub-section (1) of section 3 shall not apply to a cultivating tenant, who, if in arrears at the commencement of the Act with respect to the rent payable to the landlord and accrued due subsequent to 31st March, 1954, does not pay such rent within a month after such commencement, or, who, in respect of rent payable to the landlord after such commencement, does not pay such rent within a month after such rent became due. If a cultivating tenant commits default in payment of rent, the remedy of the landlord is by way of application under section 3 (4) (a) for eviction of the tenant. On a petition by the landlord for eviction, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall give a reasonable opportunity to the landlord and the tenant to make their representations hold a summary enquiry into the matter and may pass an order allowing the application, giving the cultivating tenant such time as he considers just and reasonable for depositing the arrears of rent payable under this Act. Section 3 does not prescribe the period for any limitation for the landlord filing a petition for eviction under section 3 (4) (a) of the Act. The Act also does not specify that in an application by the landlord for eviction of a tenant for arrears of rent, the Revenue Court can only restrict the arrears to three years’ of rent. The Act imposes a restriction on the rights of the landlord in resorting to civil Courts, but in cases of default of payment of rent, the remedy is provided for by way of application for eviction of the tenant. In the absence of any provision restricting the arrears of rent to three years prior to the date of the application, I do not see any justification for holding that the arrears of rent shall be confined only to three years’ rent prior to the date of application. The Limitation Act does not provide for any period for an application for eviction by the landlord under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. In the circumstances, I am unable to say that the order of the Revenue Court directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent for five faslis prior to the date of application is erroneous. This petition is dismissed with costs. K.S. ----- Petition dismissed.