Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an application by Laxmichand under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of prohibition against the Sub-divisional officer Bayana.

2. It appears that Deviram opposite party filed an application under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance (No. IX) of 1949 (hereinafter) called the Ordinance) in the court of the Sub-divisional Officer, Bayana, on the 21st of July, 1952. These proceedings have dragged on, and there were remands twice by the Board of Revenue. When this application was made, they were pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer after the second remand.

3. The main contention of the applicant in this case is that the Ordinance was only alive for two years, and its extension from time to time after the 21st June, 1951 is invalid.

4. The question whether the extension of the Ordinance from time to time after the 21st of June, 1949, is invalid or otherwise has come before this court in a number of cases. In Sukhlal vs. Revenue Board Rajasthan (1) it was held by a Bench of this Court that the first extension made by notification of 14th June, 1951, was valid. The same matter came up before another Bench of this Court, to which one of us

Click Here to Read the rest of this document