JUDGMENT 1. - This is an unsuccessful plaintiff's Second Appeal in a Civil Suit for declaration and injunction against the State of Rajasthan. 2. It is not necessary to mention all the facts because both the parties have argued a very short point before this Court. The notice of demand under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act for an amount of Rs. 1440/- was issued against the plaintiff, and the objection of the plaintiff was rejected. This amount purports to be rent for the use and occupation of the fort where the plaintiff kept the gun powder purchased from the defendant. 3. The plaintiffs case is that the notice of demand is null and void as there was no agreement to pay the rent and therefore it cannot be recovered under the provisions of Public Demands Recovery Act. It was further claimed that no rent can be realised prior to April 1962. After framing of the issues and recording of the evidence the trial court dismissed the suit and held that the suit cannot be entertained. 4. The first appellate Court held that it was only in 1962 that the demand for rent was first time made and as there was no agreement for rent, rent could not be charged unless the demand was made. The first appellate court held in issue No. 3 and 4 that rent can only be charged from April 1962 to June 1964. The plaintiff has claimed this relief only. However, while deciding issue No. 6 the first appellate court held that the suit should be returned for presentation to proper court. In this respect, the first appellate court was of the view that under section 259 the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. The first appellate court then held that the remedy of suit provided by the act is dependant on certain conditions which have not been fulfilled in this case and it would be doubtful whether such a suit can be filed as a Revenue Court can entertain a suit after deposit of the amount. 5. Having heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that it would be inexpedient and not in the interest of justice to drag the plaintiff to now file a suit in Revenue Court. 5. Having heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that it would be inexpedient and not in the interest of justice to drag the plaintiff to now file a suit in Revenue Court. The first appellate court has decided that the plaintiff cannot be asked to pay any amount before April 62, because there was no rent due and on account of that recovery under Lard Revenue Act could not be made. It is important to note that Land Revenue Act becomes applicable for the purposes of recovery only when the demand is covered by any of the items mentioned in the Section 256. It was not disputed that so far as the period before April 1962 is concerned, no rent could be recovered under section 256 of Land Revenue Act as it was not applicable, as found by the First Appellate Court. Thus Land Revenue Act is not applicable. Then. the bar of a suit under any of the provisions of section 259 of Land Revenue Act would also not apply. 6. In view of this, the appeal is accepted, the judgement and decree of the First Appellate Court is modified to this extent that the plaintiffs suit for an injunction restraining the defendant from recoveries the amount of rent for the period upto March, 1962 is decreed. But the defendant would be at liberty to recover the amount of rent after April 1962 to June 1964. There would be no order as to costs. *******