1. This was a suit for the ejectment through the Revenue Court of five persons who were tenants of an occupancy holding, on the ground that they had sublet a portion of their holding in contravention of the provisions of Section 25 of the Tenancy Act. This suit thus lay under the provisions of Section 57(d). The Courts below have arrived at the following findings: They found that these five defendants were recorded as the tenants of over 50 plots of an area of 83 bighas 2 biswas and that all these plots with the exception of No. 817 were agricultural plots; but they found that No. 817 was a grove in which defendants Nos. 1 to 5 had the right of grove-holders. I cannot interfere with the finding that the defendants Nos. 1 to 5, had the right of grove-holders in No. 817, for that finding is a finding of fact. It appears to me to follow from that finding that No. 817 is not part of the occupancy holding. The conclusion at which I arrive is that No. 817 is a grove in which defendants Nos. 1 to 5 have grove-holder's rights. They are not tenants of the grove. They are tenants grove-holders, a very different thing. The remaining numbers form part of an occupancy holding.
2. This appeal has arisen in the following way:
The Courts below while directing the ejectment of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 from all plots other than No. 817 have refused to eject them from No. 817. The plaintiff appeals against the refused to eject from No. 817. As I have already stated, the finding is that the defendants are tenants grove-holders of No. 817 and from that finding it follows that No. 817, although recorded with the other numbers, is not a part of the, occupancy holding. The plaintiff cannot, therefore, eject them from No. 817 under the provisions of Section 57(d) or any other provision in the Act. The case is different from the cases reported in Rameshar Singh v. Madho Lal 52 Ind. Cas. 191 : 17 A.L.J. 971 : 42 A. 36, and Param Hansman Tewari v. Dasrathman Tewari 60 Ind. Cas. 770 : 19 A.L.J. 292 : 43 A. 415. In the first case the person ejected was a tenant of a grove holding from year to year, and in the second case, the land from which the person was ejected was found on the facts to be part of the holding. It was not grove land. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs which include fees on the higher scale.