BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) THE controversy in this case is in short compass. The respondents filed an eviction petition being A. T. C. No. 14/94 for eviction of the petitioner from the leased property, the petitioner being tenant of the respondents. Along with the Tenancy case an application was filed for temporary injunction as according to the respondents the petitioner-tenant was causing destruction to the land under lease by constructing a house. An ex parte interim injunction was granted by the Special Officer-cum-Principal District Munsif. After the injunction was passed it was contended before the Special Officer that the injunction granted is being violated, therefore, action was sought in terms of Order 39, Rule 2-A of C. P. C. The Special Officer held that the order of injunction had been violated and the petitoner was punished. He was ordered to be detained in a Civil prison for a period of 30 days. He filed an appeal, in appeal also he did not succeed and the order of Special Officer was upheld. Now, this revision petition has been filed. ( 2 ) THE order of the Courts below has been challenged only on one contention that the Special Officer created under the Tenancy Act was not a Court and he had no power to punish the petitioner under Order 39 of C. P. C. It is contended that the order of injunction passed by the Special Officer was not an order under Order 39 of C. P. C. , therefore, for the violation of such an order the petitioner could not have been punished in terms of Order 39, Rule 2-A of C. P. C. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the parties were heard. Mr. P. Sree Raghuram, Advocate as Amicus Curiae was also heard. Before deciding the controversy as to whether Order 39 of C. P. C. is applicable to proceedings under the Tenancy Act, or not, it will be profitable to refer to certain provisions of the Tenancy Act and the Rules made thereunder. Special Officer is defined under Section 2 (j) which states, Special Officer means any Judicial Officer not below the rank of a District Munsiff appointed by the Government in consultation with the High Court to perform the functions of a Special Officer under the Act. Special Officer is defined under Section 2 (j) which states, Special Officer means any Judicial Officer not below the rank of a District Munsiff appointed by the Government in consultation with the High Court to perform the functions of a Special Officer under the Act. Section 16 of the Act lays down the forum for adjudication of disputes and it is stated that, any dispute arising out of the Act between the landlord and tenant be decided on an application before the Special Officer after making enquiry in the manner prescribed. It also lays down that, any order passed by the Special Officer would be appealable and appeal would lie to the District Judge. Section 17 lays down that the Act would have overriding effect over all other laws. Section 19 gives the power to Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. It specifically gives power to the Government to lay down the procedure to be followed in making the enquiries and hearing the appeals under the Act. It also gives the power to lay down the rules for the execution or enforcement of orders or decisions passed under the Act. The A. P. Tenancy Rules, 1980 were framed by the Government in exercise of the power under Section 19 of the Act. Rule 18 lays down : "18. Nature of proceedings : (1) All proceedings before the Special Officer or the District Judge under the Act shall be summary and shall be governed, as far as may be, by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. " ( 4 ) IN the light of these provisions which have been referred to above, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Tenancy Act is a complete Code with respect to the disputes arising out of the Tenancy Act, the forum for adjudication has been created. The method for conducting the enquiry has also been laid down. Even there are rules framed ragarding service of the summons and in particular Rule 18 lays down that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure shall be applicable as far as may be, which would mean that the Civil Procedure Code will apply only where the Act and the Rules are silent. Even there are rules framed ragarding service of the summons and in particular Rule 18 lays down that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure shall be applicable as far as may be, which would mean that the Civil Procedure Code will apply only where the Act and the Rules are silent. He submits that since Rule 19 lays down that the Special Officer shall have the power to issue suitable injunctions, it should be presumed that Order 39 of C. P. C. has been excluded from operation and the injunction which was issued by the Special Officer in the present case was an injunction under Section 19 of the Tenancy Rules and violation of Rule 19 was not punishable in terms of the Tenancy Act or the Rules made thereunder. Therefore, the orders impugned in this revision petition are without jurisdiction. ( 5 ) VARIOUS judgments have been cited at the Bar which are not relevant for the purpose of present controversy. One of the judgments relied in M. V. Durga Prasada Rao v. Sri Rameswara Swamy Vari Temple, (1999) 1 ALT 684 . In this case, it is laid down that the District Judge while hearing appeal under the Tenancy Act is a Court for the purposes of Section 24 of Limitation Act as the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of Limitation Act have not been excluded by the Tenancy Act. This judgment is based on a judgment of Supreme Court in Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker, AIR 1995 SC 2272 . Although this judgment (supra) is by a single Judge it also held that a Division Bench judgment being G. Sriramamurthy v. Majji Narsaiah, (1995) 3 ALT 615 , was contrary to the judgment of Supreme Court. But, the judgment of Supreme Court, the judgment of Division Bench and the judgment of single Bench of this Court to which reference has been made hereinabove are the judgments considering the power of the District Judge who is appellate authority under the Tenancy Act in condoning the delay of filing appeal in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The applicability of Code of Civil Procedure to the matters pending under Tenancy Act before the Special Officer was not considered in these judgments. The applicability of Code of Civil Procedure to the matters pending under Tenancy Act before the Special Officer was not considered in these judgments. ( 6 ) RULE 18 of the Tenancy Rules makes it clear that the Code of Civil Procedure shall be applicable as far as may be, which would in effect mean that, wherever the Act or the Rules are silent the Code of Civil Procedure will apply. No doubt, Rule 19 gives the power of granting injunctions to the Special Officer, but it does not give him any power to punish those who violate the order. In such a case, if it is held that a Special Officer has no power to punish those who violate the orders cannot be dealt with by the Special Officer, the Rule 18 itself become redundant. Thus, in such a situation, any order passed by any Special Officer would never be executed. Therefore, in such situations Rule 18 has to be taken as supplementary to the power under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for respondents that Section 141 of the C. P. C. lays down that the procedure provided in the Code with regard to the suits has to be followed in all proceedings in any Court of Civil jurisdiction, therefore, while reading Section 141, C. P. C. and Rules 18 and 19 of the Tenancy Rules, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that, the power under Order 39, Rule 2-A of CPC is also available to the Special Officers. ( 7 ) SINCE the Tenancy Act and Tenancy Rules have not laid down any procedure for dealing with persons who violate the orders of injunction passed by Special Officer, therefore, it can safely be said that the powers under C. P. C. particularly under Order 39, Rule 2-A are available to the Special Officers. This assumption is further contended while one goes through Section 5 of the C. P. C. which lays down :"5. This assumption is further contended while one goes through Section 5 of the C. P. C. which lays down :"5. Application of the Code to Revenue Courts :- (1) Where any Revenue Courts are governed by the provisions of this Code in those matters of procedure upon which any special enactment applicable to them is silent, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that any portions of those provisions which are not expressly made applicable by this Code shall not apply to those Courts, or shall only apply to them with such modifications as the State Government may prescribe. (2) "revenue Court" in sub-section (1) means a Court having jurisdiction under any local law to entertain suits or other proceedings relating to the rent, revenue or profits of land used for agricultural purposes, but does not include a Civil Court having original jurisdiction under this Code to try such suits or proceedings as being suits or proceedings of a civil nature. "from a bare perusal of Section 5 it becomes clear that where there is a special enactment and with regard to certain matters if the enactment is silent the C. P. C. will apply. In case the State Government wants that certain provisions of the C. P. C. should not apply with respect to those enactments then the State Government has the power to issue a notification. In the absence of such a notification the C. P. C. shall apply to those matters on which the special enactment is silent. Sub-section (2) of Section 5, C. P. C. defines the Revenue Courts and it is stated that Revenue Court means a Court having jurisdiction under any local law to entertain suit or proceedings relating to rent, revenue or profits of land used for agricultural purpose. Under the Tenancy Act, Special Officer has the power to entertain proceedings relating to rent of land used for agricultural purposes. Under the Tenancy Act, Special Officer has the power to entertain proceedings relating to rent of land used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, in my view the Special Officers are Revenue Courts within the meaning of Section 5 of C. P. C. Therefore, the Special Officer and the learned District Judge were correct in entertaining the application under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C. P. C. ( 8 ) IT is also contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that in case this Court comes to a conclusion that the order had been passed by the Special Officer in accordance with law, even then the punishment was too excessive and it could be converted into fine. Order 39, Rule 2-A does not have any scope for awarding a punishment of fine, but, in the facts and circumstances of the case in which it has come to light that only a thatched roof was put on the walls after the injunction had been granted, I am of the view that the punishment given was excessive. The ends of justice would meet if the punishment is reduced. Accordingly, the order of the Special Officer and the Appellate Court is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be sent to civil prison for a period of two days. ( 9 ) THE revision is accordingly disposed of. Order accordingly.