JUDGMENT

Dalal, J. - In my opinion the judgment of the Munsif was correct that the plaintiff had no longer any interest in the land in suit and was not entitled to sue. The facts have been clearly stated in the judgment of the Munsif. The plaintiff was formerly a tenant of the zemindar and in 1917 the zemindar instituted a suit for his ejectment. The suit was compromised and the plaintiff was granted a right of occupancy in the land on his promise to pay enhanced rent. This compromise, however, was not put into effect and the zemindar took possession. The plaintiff came to Court on the allegation that in December, 1923, he was ejected by the defendant a stranger, and, therefore, obtained his cause of action. This allegation has been held by both the subordinate Courts to be false. The plaintiff has not been in possession ever since 1917 when the zemindar took possession. The trial Court rightly pointed out that when the zemindar took possession the plaintiff ought to have sued u/s 79 of the Tenancy Act to oust him and that he lost his right of tenancy when he failed to do so within six months of the ouster.

2. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has not controverted the fa