Judgment Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. 1. This Civil revision application is directed against the order pased by the trial court rejecting the defendant-petitioners application for dismissing the suit on the ground that it has abated in accordance with the provision of Sec.3 (c) of the Bihar Debt Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The plaintiff-opposite party has filed the suit for a money decree on the allegation that the defendant no.1 had taken a loan from him. The petitioner filed a petition alleging that he is a "small farme" within the meaning of the term under the Act, as he owns a total area of 0-90 acre land only and the suit cannot proceed against him. 2. Clause (c) of Sec.3 (1) of the Act lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law every debt incurred by a scheduled debtor before the commencement of the Act shall be deemed to have been wholly discharged and a suit for recovery of such debt would abate. The terms "schedule debtor", "small farmer" and "marginal farmer" have been defined respectively in secs.2 (b), (c) and (d) in the following terms : " (b) scheduled debtor means a person who is a small farmer, or a marginal farmer, or a rural artisan, or an agricultural labourer, who is ordinarily resident in the State of Bihar ; (c) small farmer means a farmer who owns land measuring not more than two acres of irrigated land or four acres of unirrigated land ; (d) marginal farmer means a farmer who owns land measuring not more than one acre of irrigated land or two acres of unirrigated land. " 3. According to the case of the plaintiff, defendant no.1 has got a large area of land and is also possessed of 10 bighas of batai lands. He examined as his witness Md. Vaseemuddin who stated that the defendant no.1 was the owner of 30 bighas of land. The witness is a cousin of the defendant no.1 and lives in the same house as the defendant no.1. Besides, the defendant no.1 admitted in his deposition that he has been working as a teacher in a school and drawing a salary of several hundred rupees. In these circumstances, the court below has held that the defendant no.1 is not entitled to the benefit of the Debt relief Act. Besides, the defendant no.1 admitted in his deposition that he has been working as a teacher in a school and drawing a salary of several hundred rupees. In these circumstances, the court below has held that the defendant no.1 is not entitled to the benefit of the Debt relief Act. The defendant no.1 has now come to this Court in revision. 4. Mr. S. S. Asghar Husain appearing for the petitioner has contended that any person, irrespective of other properties he may own and other income he may have, will be considered to be a scheduled debtor if he owns small area of land as mentioned in clauses (c) and (d) of Sec.2 of the Act. If this arguments were to be accepted, the result would be that a person possessed of extensive properties and large amounts of money can, by purchasing a small area of culturable land, claim immunity from payment of his lawful debts. This interpretation would render the provisions of the Act absurd and ultra vires. The object of the Act was to give protection to small poor farmers who were not in a position to pay off their debts on account of their poverty. For a person to be a "small farmer" or a "marginal farmer" within the Act it is necessary that he be dependent upon the, agricultural land as farmer and he should not have any other substantial source of income nor should he own other substantial properties. If his main source of livelihood is not land which he owns, he cannot take advantage of the provisions of the Act. In view of the admitted position that the defendant no.1, on his own saying, is a teacher and is drawing by way of salary several hundred rupees, he cannot claim the advantages of the Act. 5. The court below has also accepted the evidence of P. W.1 that the defendant no.1 owns 20 to 30 bighas of land, and that view also it is futile to suggest that the present suit abates. 6. In the result, I find that there is no merit in this civil revision application and it must, therefore, be dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.