Karamat Husain, J.
1. All the applicants with the exception of Kallu Singh were the tenants of the complainant, Sultau Singh. They were ejected from their holding and formal possession was given to the complainant on the 16th of May 1911. The ejectment was to take effect under the provisions of Section 73 Clause (1) of the Agra Tenancy Act on the 1st of July 1911. Under Section 74 of the same, Act the tenants had a right to use the land for the purpose of growing crops. Taking advantage of those provisions they sowed Indian corn and chari. Saltan Singh, under Section 75 Clause (1) of the Tenancy Act, had an option to purchase the same but he had to tender the price of the same to the tenants forthwith under Section 75(2). The right of the tenants to such crops and to use the land for the purpose of tending, gathering and removing the same did not, therefore, cease. The complainant did not comply with the provisions of Section 75 (1) and went to the Court of the Tahsildar for the settlement of disputes as Tahsildar settled the price which was to be paid by the complainant to the applicants. He, however, did not pay. The applicants cut the chari and the complainant lodged a complaint against the applicants for theft in the Court of an Honorary Magistrate, who convicted them under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to six months' rigorous imprisonment each. On appeal, the sentence was affirmed by the Joint Magistrate. An application in revision was made to the learned Sessions Judge who came to the conclusion that as the complainant had failed to tender any price forthwith under the provisions of Section 75 of the Tenancy Act, the property in the crops sown by the applicants continued to be vested in them and did not pass to the complainant, and as the property belonged to the applicants themselves and not to the complainant, no theft was committed. He, therefore, submitted the record to this Court with a recommendation that the conviction and sentence passed on the applicants be set aside. In the explanation submitted by the Honorary Magistrate, he says that the applicants could recover the money under the decree of the Tahsildar, but that they were not competent to cut the crops. This is, in my opinion, no explanation at all. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is perfectly right. In consequence of the complainant's failure to make an immediate tender of the price under the provisions of Section 75 of the Agra Tenancy Act, he was not the owner of the crops cut by the applicants. The crops were their own property. I, therefore, accept the recommendation of the learned Sessions Judge and set aside the convictions and sentences. The bail-bond is discharged. Let the record be sent back.