JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The landlord is the Petitioner. He instituted proceedings u/s 9 of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the tenants (opposite Parties 1 to 3) on the ground that they had defaulted to deliver to him the rent accrued due within two months from the date on which it became payable. 2. In the petition before the Collector under the Act it was specified that 15-12-1963 was the date when the rent fell due. The application was filed on 28-2-1964. After hearing the parties the O.T.R. Collector rejected the application. Upon appeal by the landlord the Sub-divisional Officer allowed relief of eviction. The tenants came before the Additional District Magistrate u/s 15 of the Act, in revision. The additional District Magistrate was of the view that the application before the original Collector was beyond time and, therefore no relief should have been granted by the appellate Court. He directed by his order dated 4.6.1968 that the matter should be sent back to the appellate authority for reconsideration of the question of limitation. It is against this order that the present writ application has been filed asking, us to quash it as the view taken by the revisional authority is contrary to law. 3. The question raised here is more or less covered by a Division Bench of this Court in Naran Kandi v. Bhima Praharaj 36 C.L.T. 983. On a bare analysis of Section 9 of the Act it would follow that the view adopted by the revisional authority cannot be sustained section, as far as relevant, provides: (1) Any dispute between the tenant and the landlord as regards x x x (b) failure of the tenant to deliver to the landlord the rent accrued due within two months from the date on which it becomes payable. x x x shall be decided by the Collector on the application of either of the parties; Provided that such application shall be filed before the Collector in, the prescribed manner within six days from the date on which the dispute arises or from the date of the passing of this Act, whichever is later. 4. There is no dispute that the cause of Action arose on 15.12.1963. 4. There is no dispute that the cause of Action arose on 15.12.1963. u/s 9(1)(b) of the Act failure of the tenant to deliver to the landlord the rent accrued due within two months from the date on which it becomes payable gives the cause of (sic) and under the proviso 60 days? time is allowed to come to the Court with the application. Thus the tenants were to pay the rent by 15-2-1964, and if they failed to do so within 60 day therefrom the landlord had the right to apply for necessary relief. The application in this case was made on 28-2-1964. It is therefore, within the time allowed under the law. It was contended on behalf of the opposite parties that in the instant case no dispute, however, arose because after failure of the tenants to deliver to the landlord the rent accrued within two months no demand had been made by the landlord of rent and there had been no refusal on the part of the tenants to pay. The word ?dispute? in Section 9(1) of the Act has been used in the sense of giving rise, to cause of Action. The Additional District Magistrate went wrong in holding that the application made u/s 9(1) of the Act was out of time. We would quash that order dated 4-6-1968 and direct him to dispose of the revision petition on merits. The, writ application is allowed. Both parties would bear their own costs. B.C. Das, J. 5. I agree. Final Result : Allowed