JUDGMENT : A.N. Verma, J. This is a Defendant's application in revision directed against an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mainpuri, rejecting an application filed by the Defendant-applicant for abatement of a suit u/s 22(b) of U.P. Debt Relief Act, 1977 (Act No. 4 of 1977). 2. The relevant facts are these : The Plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 940/-against the Defendant-applicant on the basis of a promissory note said to have been executed by the Defendant-applicant in favour of the Plaintiff opposite-party. The suit was decreed by the Judge, Small Causes, Mainpuri, on 25-9-1973. The Defendant-applicant filed a Revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 3. While the Revision was pending, U.P. Rural Weaker Section (Moratorium on Recovery of Debts) Act, 1975 (U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975) came into force with effect from 10-10-1975. This Act provided for a moratorium on Recovery of Debts from certain landless agricultural labourers and small and marginal farmers etc. Section 3(b) of U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975 provided that notwithstanding any contract or decree in a suit, appeal or application pending on the date of the commencement of the said Act, shall be stayed for a period of one year. Purporting to seek the benefit of the aforesaid provision of Act No. 51 of 1975, the Defendant-applicant moved an application before the learned District Judge before whom the aforesaid revision filed by him was pending for the stay of the hearing of the revision on the ground that the Defendant-applicant was a small farmer. This application was contested by the Plaintiff-opposite-party. The Plaintiff-opposite-party asserted in his objection that the Defendant-applicant was not a small farmer within the meaning of U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975, that his main source of livelihood was not cultivation, and that the Defendant-applicant was doing a flourishing business of Halwai (preparing and selling sweet-meats). The learned District Judge allowed the said application of the Defendant-applicant by an order dated 9-10-1976 and directed that the proceedings of the revision shall remain stayed for a period of one year. He directed the file to be put up for orders after one year. 4. Later, the U.P. Legislature passed another enactment called the U.P. Debt Relief Act, 1977. He directed the file to be put up for orders after one year. 4. Later, the U.P. Legislature passed another enactment called the U.P. Debt Relief Act, 1977. This was an exhaustive law making provision for giving relief to various classes of debtors in Uttar Pradesh, such as landless agricultural labourer, marginal farmer, rural artisan, small farmer and urban workers, all of whom had been defined under the Act No. 4 of 1977. Section (sic) of U.P. Act No. 4 of 1977 provides for the discharge of debt payable on the date of commencement of the aforesaid Act No. 4 of 1977 by a debtor. Section 10 of the same Act provides for stay of all proceedings pending on the date of the commencement of the Act for recovery of any debt due from a small farmer. Section 22 of the aforesaid Act contains a bar to entertainment of any suit or proceeding against a small farmer as well as for abatement of pending proceedings. 5. The Defendant-applicant sought to claim the benefit of the provisions of Section 22(b) of the aforesaid Act No. 4 of 1977 and filed a fresh application before the learned District Judge for the abatement of the suit as well as the revision on the ground that he was a small farmer. The court below has rejected this application holding that the Defendant-applicant is not a small farmer; and hence this revision. 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant challenged the correctness of the order passed by the court below on the ground that the Defendant-applicant having been held to be a small farmer under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975 by the learned District Judge on the earlier occasion, the finding recorded in the said order operated as res-judicata and barred the court from going into that question again. 7. Learned Counsel for the opposite-party on the other hand urged that the order passed by the learned District Judge dated 9-10-1976 staying the revision u/s 3 of U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975, could not, on the plain language of the definition of 'small farmers' as given in U.P. Act No. 4 of 1977 legally operate as res-judicata in the present proceedings. 8. 8. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the view that there is no substance in the argument of the Learned Counsel for the applicant and that this Revision is liable to be dismissed. 9. The court below has upon a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence led in the present proceedings recorded a categorical finding that the Defendant-applicant is not a small farmer, and that he was running his sweet-meat shop from which his monthly income was about Rs. 700/-to Rs. 800/-. The Id. D.J. has held that the previous order passed in favour of the Defendant-applicant on 9-10-1976 staying the hearing of the Defendant-applicant's revision under Act No. 51 of 1975 could not operate as res judicata, as the enquiry under the above-mentioned Act, namely, U.P. Act No. 4 of 1977 has to be whether the Defendant-applicant is a small farmer on the date of the commencement of the aforesaid Uttar Pradesh Act No. 4 of 1977. Act No. 4 of 1977 was published in the U.P. Gazette dated 23-7-1977, but u/s 1(3) of the Act, the Act is to be deemed to have come into force on February 21, 1977. u/s 2(11), 'small farmer' has been defined as follows: “Small farmer” means a person residing in a village who, on the date of the commencement of this Act, holds an unirrigated land exceeding one hectare but not exceeding two hectares and whose principal source of livelihood is income from agricultural land or by manual labour on such land and includes a person cultivating land as an asami or as a share-cropper.” (emphasis supplied). 10. What, therefore, has to be seen is whether the Defendant applicant was a small farmer on 21/2/1977, the date of the commencement of this Act. It is obvious that under the previous order dated 9-10-1976, there could possibly be no inquiry and in fact there was none, whether the Defendant-applicant was a small farmer on 21-2-1977. The finding given in the previous order, therefore, that the Defendant-applicant was a 'small farmer' cannot operate as res judicata. The view taken by the courts below is, thus perfectly correct in law. 11. The finding given in the previous order, therefore, that the Defendant-applicant was a 'small farmer' cannot operate as res judicata. The view taken by the courts below is, thus perfectly correct in law. 11. It may be mentioned that U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975 was an Act intended to provide a moratorium on recovery of debts from landless agricultural labourers for a limited period pending the enactment of an exhaustive law on the subject. U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975 consists of only five sections. Section 3 of U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975 provided for stay of a suit or appeal or revision for a period of one year. Moreover, the definition of small farmer as laid down in Section 2(ix) of U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975 was also different and it was as follows: “Small farmer” means a person whose main source of livelihood is cultivation and who holds land measuring more than one hectare but not more than two hectares in Uttar Pradesh and in the district of Bundelkhand, the measurement of such area shall be 1.5 hectares to 3 hectares. 12. This definition differs in material particulars from the definition of “small farmer” under the present Act. Under the present Act i. e. U.P. Act No. 4 of 1977, the legislature has given, the benefit of the Act only to those small farmers who held unirrigated land exceeding one hectare but not exceeding two hectares. Moreover, it is obvious that a person may be a small farmer in the year 1976 and he may not be so on the date of the commencement of the new Act, namely, Act No. 4 of 1977. I am, therefore, clearly of the view that the finding given by the learned District Judge holding that the order dated 9-10-1976 could not operate as res judicata in the present case is correct. If the legislature had intended to give the benefit of the present Act even to “small farmers” who were “small farmers” within the meaning of U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975, it would not have limited the point of time with reference to which the question whether a person is a small farmer or not has to be determined. If the legislature had intended to give the benefit of the present Act even to “small farmers” who were “small farmers” within the meaning of U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975, it would not have limited the point of time with reference to which the question whether a person is a small farmer or not has to be determined. It has expressly limited the benefit of the provisions of the new Act to persons who are 'small farmers' on the date of the commencement of the Act, namely 21-2-1977. 13. Learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the provision of Section 36(2) of U.P. Act No. 4 of 1977 ; Section 36 of the Act is as follows; 36. Repeal and saving-(1) The Uttar Pradesh Landless Agricultural Labourers Rural Weaker Section (Moratorium on Recovery of Debts) Act, 1975 (U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975) and the U.P. Debt Relief (Second) Ordinance (U.P. Ordinance No. 13 of 1977) are hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under any of the enactments repealed by Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have been done or taken under this Act.” 14. In my view, the aforesaid provisions are of no assistance to the applicant. Sub-section (2) of Section 36 only validates acts done or action taken under the previous enactment as if those acts had been done or action taken under the present Act. The present Act also provides for stay of proceedings u/s 10 thereof, but before, the Defendant-applicant can claim benefit of Section 10 of the present Act, he will have to establish that he is a “small farmer” on the date of commencement of the present Act. In my view, there is no conflict between Section 2(11) and Section 36(2) of U.P. Act No. 4 of 1977. The language of Section 2 Sub-section (11) is clear and explicit and the legislature having unambiguously limited the benefit conferred upon persons who were small farmers on the date of the commencement of the present Act, the enquiry must be with reference to the state of affairs on the date of the commencement of the present Act. The provisions of U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975 were intended to give a temporary or interim benefit pending the enactment of an exhaustive law on the subject. The provisions of U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975 were intended to give a temporary or interim benefit pending the enactment of an exhaustive law on the subject. However, when the legislature enacted a comprehensive law on the subject, it fixed the point of time, with reference to which alone the benefit of discharge of debt or abatement of suits was to be conferred on various classes of debtors. 15. Learned Counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on the provisions of Section 28 of the U.P. Act No. 4 of 1977, which reads as follows: 28. in any suit or proceeding, the burden of proving that the debtor is not entitled to the protection of this Act, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, lies on the creditor. 16. The provisions of Section 28 have no application to the facts of the present case, as they apply only to “debtor”. The word “debtor” has been defined in Section 2(6). Under the new Act 'a small farmer' has been specifically excluded from the definition of a “debtor”. The Defendant applicant had only claimed to be a “small farmer” and not a debtor as defined u/s 2(6) of the Act. 17. Learned Counsel also contended that on the previous occasion also, the issue between the parties was whether the Defendant-applicant was running a sweet meat shop and on that occasion it was held that the Defendant-applicants main source of livelihood was not that business. The fact that on the previous occasion, the Plaintiff-applicant could not succeed in establishing that the Defendant-applicant was not a small farmer or that he was not running a Halwai shop as asserted by the Plaintiff, cannot stand in the way of the Plaintiff-opposite-party leading fresh evidence bringing on the record additional material to prove that the Defendant-applicant was running a flourishing sweetmeat shop. Once it is held that the relevant point of time for determining the question whether the Defendant-applicant was a small farmer or not is 21-2-77, in my view, any finding given by the learned Distt. Judge on the previous occasion would have no bearing on the present controversy. What had to be seen in the present proceedings was whether on 21-2-77, the Defendant-applicant was running a shop of sweetmeat, and that the income from this business was the main source of his livelihood. Judge on the previous occasion would have no bearing on the present controversy. What had to be seen in the present proceedings was whether on 21-2-77, the Defendant-applicant was running a shop of sweetmeat, and that the income from this business was the main source of his livelihood. The lower appellate court has given a finding on the evidence on record Brought in the present case that the Defendant-applicant was running a flourishing sweet-meat shop on the relevant date i. e. on 21-2-1977, and that this business was his main source of livelihood. There is, therefore, no substance in this contention of the Learned Counsel for the applicant. 18. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.