1. The fact of the suit out of which this appeal arises are that mulla ??? has been in possession of there prose ??? and Cantonment for over 20 years be ??? or suit. He has been ??? these plots which are or an aggregate area of about half an acre. ??? purchased the plots, by three sale deeds, ??? of the 10th of January ??? the second of the 20th of July ??? and the ??? of the 14th August ???. On the evidence, he has never paid any rent in respect ??? plots and his ??? to occupy the same was never ??? he ??? of the present proceeding. It wold appear that in the year 1911 ??? was ??? as record ??? for the Shahjahanpur Cantonments until his ??? Mulla had been entered a propretor of plots Nos. 1591-1 and 1594-2 other persons being recorded as ??? of No. ??? Narain altered the entry and ??? Mulla, to be a tenant ??? other Cantonments land ??? as a tenant ??? on the rent of these there plots was recorded as R. 5-8. In 1913 the Cantonment ??? eject him under the Tenancy Act as a tenant at will, from the half acre in question in the court of on Assistant Collector. The plaintiff describes himas a non-occupancy tenant. The suit was decreed. Mulla appealed to the District judge. The District Judge found on the ??? that Mulla was propretor of Nos. ??? ans ??? and a ??? of 1601. The secretary of state appeals to this court against the partial ??? of the claim ??? that mulla be ejected from all the there plots.
2. The first point for decision is whether a rent, court had jurisdiction.
3. I find that the rent court had no jurisdiction in the matter. The Tenancy Act applied to the territories administered by the Governor of the Province of Agra with the exception of certain specified areas. The land in dispute is situated in Cantonments Cantonments are under the direct administration of the Government of India. This is clear from Army Regulation Vol. II, Article 403 and the following articles. The suit was thus instituted in a court which had no jurisdiction to diction it if the land had been land to which the Tenancy Act applied Mulla must have been held to have acquired occupancy rights over two of the numbers an ??? a portion of the ??? but as the Tenancy Act has no application he bars not obtained the privileges of an accusation tenant Mulla taok the objection in the court of first instance that the suit had been instituted in the wrong court. The appeal lay is any circumstances to the District Judge, as he asserted proprietary title. Section 497 of the Tenancy Act thus has application and as I have before me all the material necessary for determination. I must dispose of the appeal as though the suit, had been instituted, (as it should have been) in a Civil court. I thus take ??? as an ordinary suit for ejectment. What is the position of Mulla? There is a very long series of decisions from 1866 onwa ds; Carey v. Robinson, Indian Jurist, new series Vol. 1 page 88; Ram Chund v. Collector of Mirzapar, N.W.P High Court Reports of 1868, page 7; Paterson v. Secretary of State (I.L.R, 3 All., 669) Secretary of State v. Jaggan Prasad, (I.L.R, 6 All., 148); Secretary of State v. Vamanrav Narayan Chiplunkar, (I.L.R 30 Bom. 137), Bank of Uppe India Ltd. Mussoorie v. Secretary of State, I.L.R 22 All. 229); and Kaikhusru Aderji Ghaswala v. Secretary of State, (I.L.R 36 Bom. 1). The last decision is a decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council From these decision it is clear that the Secretary of State is absolute owner of all Cantonment land, unless it can be proved satisfactorily that he has parted with the ownership. In the absence of evidence as is the case hae, all Cantonment land belong to the Secretary of State. There can be no adverse possession against him. The only position open to a person occupy land in Cantonments which has not been specifically transferred by the Secretary of State the position of a tenant of the position of a licensee it has been found on the facts that Mulla is not a tenant he has never paid rent. His position is this that of a license, and it is open to the Secretary of State to eject him at will by revoking his license. This appeal must therefore succeed.
4. I have asked the learned Government Advocate to consider the advisability of representing to the proper authorities that this is-a hard case Mulla purchased what he believed to be proprietary rights in Shahjahanpur Cantonments over 20 years ago. The Cantonment authoritiess did not question his title untill 1011. From that year they have all along permitted him to remain is occupation of this land. They assigned no reason for ejecting him. The case would he a hard case is any circumstances. It particularly a hard case is view of the fact that Shahjahanpur Cantonments, although it rem this a Militay Cantonment in name has for many years not been occupied by troops. I here seems to be no ingestion that, the cessation of cultivation over this area is necessary in the interests of the safety of Shahjahanpur. If the object of this suit has been to assort the Secretary of State's proprietary title, that object will be sufficiently gained by my decree, and Mulla might then be restored to the occupation of the land if be agrees to pay rent for it. In the result I decree this appeal but inasmuch as the Secretary of State instituted the suit in a wrong court on a wrong cause of action and on assertions which he was unable to prove, I direct that the plaintiff pay his own costs throughout and those of the defendant.