(1.) THE Petitioner is recorded as a sikimi tenant under opposite party No. 1 in respect of 1.39 acres of land in sikimi Khatas Nos. 11 and 12 under Debottar Khata No. 6 of mouza Khajalbodha, in Baramba P.S. in the district of Cuttack. The rent, was payable in kind. Opposite party No. 1 obtained a decree on 21 -5 -1965 for eviction of the Petitioner for non -payment of rent in Rent Suit No. 7 of 1961 -62. Execution was levied on 11 -12 -1965 for recovery of possession in Execution Case No. 1 of 1965 -66. On 1 -10 -1965, the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1950, (Orissa Act No. 16 of 1960 -hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) excluding Chapters III and IV came into force. The Petitioner therefore took an objection in the Execution Case that the decree was not executable in view of Sections 3 and 8(1) of the Act. This objection was over -ruled by the executing Court and the first appellate authority on 6 -5 -1966 and 29 -12 -1967 respectively. Against the appellate order of the Additional District Magistrate over -ruling the objection in Revenue Appeal No. 2 of 1966, this writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
(2.) MR . Das contends that the Petitioner is a raiyat under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act and as such, is not evictable by virtue of the provisions in Sections 3 and a(1) of the Act despite the decree for eviction passed against him on 21 -5 -1965. This necessitates an examination of the aforesaid provisions.
(3.) IF the Petitioner is a raiyat within the ambit of Section 4(1)(0), then certainly he is not liable for eviction by virtue of the provisions of Sections 3 and 8(1) despite the impugned decree for eviction. In other words, though opposite party No. 1 got a decree against the Petitioner for non -payment of rent such a decree would be inexecutable after the coming into force of Chapter II of the Act if the Petitioner is a raiyat. It is neither party's case that eviction is Bought against the Petitioner under any of the Clauses (a) to (c) of Section a(1).