1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Civil Judge of Budaun, dated 17th September 1941. The plaintiff brought a suit for the possession of a house in the village abadi with the allegation that he is the owner and allowed defendant 1 to live in it as a licensee about five years ago. The defendants have colluded amongst themselves and in order to defeat his title, defendant 1 allowed defendants 2 and 3 who are brothers to bring a suit against him. It was during the pendency of this suit that the present suit was filed. The Munsif decreed the plaintiff's suit but the learned Civil Judge dismissed it in toto. The plaintiff's case was that he was connected with Girand Singh who died about 60 years ago, leaving a widow, Mt. Dhanno, who continued to live in this house and on her death the plaintiff took possession of it and only five years ago allowed defendant 1 to live in it. Defendants 2 and 3 who are zamindars say that their father took possession of the house presumably when Mt. Dhanno died and that the plaintiff never was in possession. The learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that the plaintiff was related to Girand Singh or was ever in possession of the house. He has believed that the father of defendants 2 and 3 took possession of it either when Mt. Dhanno died or when she left the village many years ago. Learned Counsel argues that the Civil Judge did not pay proper attention to the evidence and that his finding of fact is perverse. I do not agree with this argument. It seems to me that it is more probable that the father of defendants 2 and 8 took possession of the house years ago than that the plaintiff took possession of it from Mt. Dhanno and there is sufficient evidence to support this conclusion. On the question of law, however, I think that the plaintiff must also fail because when he gave possession, according to his account, to defendant 1, years ago, he lost all claim to this house.
2. A tenant in a village abadi is entitled to live in a house rent-free as long as he is a tenant or a village worker like a carpenter or blacksmith and under a new section of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, Section 162, he is not liable to ejectment from the residential house merely because he has been ejected from his holding in the village. This is a very valuable section which clarifies the law on this obscure subject. On the other hand, in my opinion, a tenant who does not pay rent and who never has paid rent for a residential house in the village, is not a lessee within the meaning of Section 105, T. P. Act, and Chap. 5 of that Act does not apply to him. The reason for this is that a zamindar is not the same as a landowner in a town. He is a landholder from Government with certain responsibilities to the State and to the tenants. He remains a landholder only as long as he pays revenue and he is bound to supply adequate accommodation for his tenants and village workers who do not pay rent for their residential houses but in the vast majority of cases pay rent for their agricultural holdings. A tenant, therefore, is not in the same position as a tenant of town property. He retains the right to live in his residential house as long as it is necessary for his requirements but the moment he hands over possession to somebody else, he abandons the house. It is altogether impossible for a man who has no responsibility to the State in payment of revenue and no responsibility to the zamindar in payment of rent, to be allowed the privilege possessed by a tenant of town property, who has to pay rent, to sub-let or hand over his residential house to a third person; otherwise he would be, to all intents and purposes, the complete owner of the house without the responsibility of ownership. I am not here referring to the material of the house but to the site.
3. In the present case, the plaintiff has admittedly given possession to a third party and, in my view, directly he does that, he has lost his interest in the said house which belongs to the zamindar. It is quite immaterial that the present defendants 2 and 8 may not be the zamindars of that patti. It is for other zamindars, if any, who claim that patti to contest the claim of defendants 2 and 8. As far as the plaintiff is concerned, he has no locus standi after he has handed over the house to a third party. This interpretation of the law regarding abadi land is, in my opinion, confirmed by Section 162, U. P. Tenancy Act of 1989, which is new. The Legislature intended to afford protection to tenants regarding their residential houses even if they had been ejected from their holdings but if it had intended to place tenants on the same footing as tenants in town areas whose position is absolutely different, a clause would have been added to that effect. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Permission to file Letters Patent appeal is disallowed.