JUDGMENT 1. - This application is revision has been filed by the defendant against the order dated July 17, 1978 passed by Additional Munsif, Bhilwara. 2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner instituted a suit for eviction and Rs. 1092.00 against the defendant-petitioner in the court of Munsif, Bhilwara on September 20, 1976. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff is the landlord and defendant is the tenant ; that the defendant took on rent. @Rs. 24/- per month payable from December 1, 1973, a Guadi' described in para No 1 of the plaint ; that the defendant executed a rent-note to this effect on December 3, 1973 ; that the tenancy was for 11 months and that on the expiry of the period on November 1, 1974, rent for 11 months amounting to Rs. 264/- was outstanding. The defendant failed to pay rent thereafter and, therefore, the plaintiff has stated that upto September 2, 1976, Rs. 528.00 on account of damages for use and occupation are also due from the defendant. The ejectment was sought on the ground of default in making payment of the rent month by month. In para 4 of the plaint, it was specifically mentioned that the 'Guadi' described in para No. 1 of the plaint was mortgaged with possession to him by-means of a registered mortgage-deed and that the mortgaged property was taken on rent by the defendant from the plaintiff as a tenant in respect of which rent note was executed. In para 5 of the plaint, it was stated that on December 3, 1973, the defendant took a loan of Rs. 300/- from the plaintiff and executed an agreement in the plaintiff's favour. The amount of loan of Rs. 300/- was not paid and, therefore, this sum was also due from the defendant. It will thus be seen that Rs. 102/- in respect of which, besides ejectment, suit was brought consisted of Rs. 300/- as loan and Rs. 792/- as rent and damages for use and occupation. On May 28, 1977, defendant petitioner moved an application under section 4 of the Rajasthan Scheduled Debtors Liquidation of Indebtedness) Act (No. XXIII of 1976) (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'). It was stated in that application that under the provisions of the Act, the entire amount including the principal amount of mortgage stands wholly discharged. On May 28, 1977, defendant petitioner moved an application under section 4 of the Rajasthan Scheduled Debtors Liquidation of Indebtedness) Act (No. XXIII of 1976) (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'). It was stated in that application that under the provisions of the Act, the entire amount including the principal amount of mortgage stands wholly discharged. Allegations were made in the petition to show that he is a scheduled debtor within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act. It was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed and the rent note and the mortgage deed may be cancelled. This application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing a reply dated July 8, 1977. One of the grounds taken in the reply was that the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff and the suit is in respect of the amount of the rent which is not a debt defined in section 3(e) of the Act. The learned Munsif dismissed the defendant's application by order dated July 17, 1978 holding that the provisions of the Act apply only when there is a relationship of debtor and creditor and as the suit instituted by the plaintiff was for eviction and arrears founded on the relationship of landlord and tenant, the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked by the defendant. He was also of the opinion that according to section 3(a), the provisions of the Act cannot effect the rent due in respect of the property rented out to the defendant, who has alleged himself to be a 'scheduled debtor'. Against the order dismissing the application under Section 4 of the Act, the defendant petitioner had filed this revision application. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. Mr. D.S. Sisodia learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Additional Munsiff has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law when he dismissed the defendant's application under section 4 without making any enquiry. He invited my attention to paras 4 and 5 of the plaint, the contents whereof have already been summarised in the foregoing part of this judgment. He invited my attention to paras 4 and 5 of the plaint, the contents whereof have already been summarised in the foregoing part of this judgment. It is clear that the plaintiff is the mortgagee-landlord and the defendant is a mortgagor- tenant and that the mortgaged property was taken on rent by the defendant as a tenant from the plaintiff-landlord in respect of which, the amount of rent and damages for use and occupation are said to be due from the defendant. It is further clear that a sum of Rs. 300/- was advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant as a loan on December 3, 1973 and the defendant had executed an agreement in respect there-of in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed recovery of this amount of loan also. Mr. R.C. Maheashwari learned counsel for the plaintiff-non petitioner submitted that at least the claim of the plaintiff as put forward in para 5 of the plaint relates to debt as defined' in Section 2(a) of the Act and, therefore, the trial court, to the extent, should have enquired into the application filed by the defendant under section 4 of the Act. He, however, submitted that in view of Section 3(a) of the Act, so far as the claim of the plaintiff with respect to the amount of rent and damages for use and occupations is concerned, the provisions of Section 4 cannot be availed of by the defendant for the purpose of discharge of this amount. The reply of Mr. Sisodia to the contention raised by Mr. R.C. Maheahwari in respect of the claim relating to the amount of rent and damages for use and occupation is that according to Section 7 of the Act, all property belonging to a scheduled debtors which was immediately proceeding the commencement of the Act under any mortgage in connection which any debt owed by a scheduled debtor shall, in so far as it is related to such debt, stand freed and discharged from such mortgage and where any such property was immediately before the commencement of the Act in possession of the mortgagee, such property shall, except where it was subject to any other charge on such commencement, be restored to the possession of the scheduled debtor. He contended that in view of this, the claim under the mortgage-deed and the claim for arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation would stand discharged and the mortgagee would be required to hand over possession of the mortgaged property to the defendant. 4. Section 4 of the Act deals with liquidation of debts of scheduled debtors. Section 2(a) defines 'debt' and it says that debets includes all liabilities owing to a creditor in cash or kind, accrued or unsecured, payable under a decree or order of a civil court or otherwise and subsisting on the date of commencement of this Act where due or not due. The claim for the recovery of Rs. 300/- which advanced to the defendant by the plaintiff on December 3, 1973 is a debt within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act and this has not been rightly disputed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner. Section 2(j) of the Act reads as under- "scheduled debtor means an agricultural labourer, a marginal farmer and a rural artisan." For the purpose of deciding the application submitted by the defendant- petitioner under Section 4 of the Act, an enquiry as to whether the defendant is a scheduled debtor within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act is necessary as the allegations by which the defendant claims herself to be a scheduled debtor were denied by the plaintiff in his reply to the application under Section 4 of the Act. The learned Additional Munsiff, Bhilwara, did not take into consideration the averment made in para 5 of the plaint as well as the definition of 'debt' given in Section 2(a). In these circumstances, the learned Additional Munsiff failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law when he held that there is no substance in the defendant's application dated July 28, 1977 and that it is not necessary to enquire whether the defendant is scheduled debtor as the suit is with respect to arrears of rent. 5. For the reasons mentioned above, the revision application must be allowed. 6. 5. For the reasons mentioned above, the revision application must be allowed. 6. I, accordingly, accept this revision application and set aside the order dated July 17, 1973 passed by the Additional Munsiff, Bhilwara and direct that an enquiry be made as to whether the defendant petitioner is a scheduled debtor within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act and, there- after, to dispose of the defendant's application dated July 28, 1977 in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is, however, made, clear that it will be open to the trial court to determine the extant of the amount to which section 4 of the Act would be available to the defendant, particularly keeping in view the provisions contained in section 3 and of the Act. In the circumstance of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Revision Allowed. *******