JUDGMENT Jagdish Sahai, J. - This special appeal is directed against the judgment of D. S. Mathur J., allowing in part writ petition No. 2797 of 1958 filed by the respondent Raja Jitendra Singh (hereinafter called the Raja). The Raja was assessed to the Large Land Holding Tax for the year 1365 Fasli. During the assessment proceedings he raised an objection that he was entitled to the benefit of rule 6-A of the rules framed under the Large Land Holdings Tax-Act. The said rule runs as follows: "Where any land holding or part thereof has been legally sub-let by a disabled land-holder mentioned in sub-Sec. (1) of Section 157 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the holding tax shall be remitted to the extent of that chargeable on the sub-let land if its annual value were arrived at by multiplying the rent payable by 102 times." 2. The assessing authority (Sub-Divisional Officer, Maharajganj) held that the Raja was a minor on 1-7-1957 and was for that reason entitled to sub-let his holding, but did not give him any remission, as provided under Rule 6-A, on the ground that there was no evidence to show that he had actually sub-let any holding. The Raja tiled an appeal before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, which was dismissed on 9-9-1958. Thereupon by means of the writ petition giving rise to this special appeal the order passed by the assessing authority (Sub-Divisional Officer, Maharajganj) was challenged and it was prayed that a writ of prohibition be issued by this court prohibiting the appellants from realising the sum of Rs. 62,011.39 nP. which had been assessed as Large Land Holdings Tax from the Raja. There was also the usual prayer for the issue of any other writ, order or direction as this court deemed it fit and proper to issue. Rule 6-A came into force on 23rd April 1958. According to Mathur, J. the Raja attained majority on 4-3-1958. He also held that the land had been sub-let by the Raja before 23rd April 1958. He went on to observe as follows: "The land which had been properly sub-let during the period of minority could not be taken back from the sub-tenants (asamis) during the remaining few months of 1365 Fasli. He also held that the land had been sub-let by the Raja before 23rd April 1958. He went on to observe as follows: "The land which had been properly sub-let during the period of minority could not be taken back from the sub-tenants (asamis) during the remaining few months of 1365 Fasli. In these circumstances the land legally sub-let to asamis during the minority of the petitioner shall be covered by Rule 6-A and the petitioner would be entitled to the remission at the prescribed rate for the year 1365 Fasli." 3. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition to the extent that the assessment order dated July 16, 1958 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Maharajganj, and the order in appeal dated 9-9-1958 of the Commissioner, Lucknow, were quashed. The Sub-Divisional Officer was directed to make the assessment of the Large Land Holding Tax in accordance with law. 4. In appeal before us Mr. Raja Ram Agarwal, Junior Standing Counsel, has contended that Rule 6-A could not apply in the instant case because on 1st July 1957, when the Fasli year 1365 opened, the rule 6-A did not exist, the same having come into force on 23rd April 1958. The second submission is that in any case, the rule having come into force on 23rd April 1958, the period for which the Raja could get the benefit under Section 6-A during the assessment year 1365 Fasli would be from 24th April 1958 to 30th June 1958. In our judgment there is no substance in either of the two submissions. Admittedly, Rule 6-A has been framed for the benefit of disabled landholders. On 16th July 1958 when the assessment order was passed the rule admittedly was in force and the assessing authority could not have ignored it. The rule is in general language and there does not seem to be anything in it to show that it was not applicable to the pending assessment of the year 1365 Fasli, which year opened on the 1st July 1957. In our judgment the rule is so worded that it would have applied to all pending proceedings for assessment on the date it was enforced and to all proceedings for assessment that would arise subsequently. In our judgment the rule is so worded that it would have applied to all pending proceedings for assessment on the date it was enforced and to all proceedings for assessment that would arise subsequently. In our view therefore the Raja was entitled to the benefit of Rule 6-A. We are therefore unable to agree with the learned Junior Standing Counsel that the rule would not apply for the assessment year 1365 Fasli. We find no substance in the submission that it would apply only to a part of the year, that is to say, for the period of the year which commenced with 24th April 1958 and ended with 30th June 1958. The assessment is made for a year. We have stated earlier that, as rule 6-A is worded, its language is comprehensive enough to include in its ambit any pending proceeding of the date when it came into force or any subsequent proceeding. We are therefore of the opinion that rule 6-A was applicable to the proceedings of assessment giving rise to this special appeal and that the Raja is entitled to its benefit. In that view of the matter the special appeal must be adjudged to be without any force. It is accordingly dismissed with cost.