( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against the Honble Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh and one Gandra Gir for a writ of prohibition to restrain opposite party no. 1 from trying revision No. 44 of 1950-51 in a case under Section 27, U. P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act of 1947.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are as follows: Section 27, U. P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947 provides for the reinstatement of certain tenants who had been ejected from their holdings under Section 165 or Section 171 or Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939. Gendra Gir made an application under this section to the revenue Court. The trial Court dismissed that application. There was an appeal to the Collector under Sub-section (6) of Section 27 but it was infructuous. A petition in revision was filed before the Commissioner, but without any success. Thereupon ha filed a revision purporting to be under Section 275, U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939 before the Honble Board of Revenue. The present applicants took a preliminary objection that the revision was not maintainable inasmuch as Section 27 of the Amending Act was self-contained and the order passed by the Collector was final under Sub-section (6) of that section. A learned member of the honble Board of Revenue considered this objection by an order, dated 14-8-1951, and held that the Board possessed the revisional jurisdiction. In this application, it is contended that the view taken by the Board of Revenue is erroneous and it has no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the revision.

( 3 ) TWO objections have been raised before us. Firstly, it is contended that Section 27 being not a part of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, orders passed under it do not fall within the purview of section 275 of the present Act and there being no provision for revision in the Amending Act, the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision. Secondly, it is argued that the word "final" in Sub-section (6) of Section 27 has not been correctly interpreted by the Honble board of Revenue.

( 4 ) TAKING up the first objection, we agree entirely with the reasons given by the Honble Board of revenue. The preamble of the parent Act, namely, the D. P. Tenancy Act, 1939 will show that its object was to consolidate and amend the law relating to agricultural tenancies, proprietary cultivation and other matters connected therewith in this State. No one will deny that the object of the U. P. Tenance (Amendment) Act also is the same. Its preamble runs as follows :

"an Act further to amend the United Provinces Tenancy Act XVII [17] of 1939. Whereas it is expedient to amend certain provisions of the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939, and to give relief to certain tenants ejected thereunder, and also to provide for the better utilization of land. "

Section 27 deals with the ejectments effected prior to the amendment under Sections 165, 171 and 180 of the parent Act and it purports to give relief to those tenants who had been ejected under those sections prior to the amendment. The working of those three sections brought into prominence certain hardships to the tenants and it was, therefore, considered desirable to soften, their rigours. In a way, Section 27 is intended to amend the effect of Sections 165, 171, and 180 of the parent Act. The section is, in effect, a proviso to each of these three sections. Section 27 of the Amending Act was not given a permanent place in the parent Act because Section 27, as its terms would show, was temporary in operation. An application under it could be made within six months from the date of the commencement of the Amending Act. To find out whether or not a certain law amends an existing law one has to see its pith and substance and not to its form. There is no room for any doubt that the scope of Section 27 is the same as that of Sections 165, 171 and 180 of the parent Act. It amends the previous operation of those three sections to a certain extent by n