JUDGMENT : AIKMAN, J. One Kallu was the occupancy tenant of a certain holding. He died sometime before September, 1897, leaving two daughters, Sundar and Mano. These ladies got their names entered in the Revenue record in the place of Kallu as occupancy tenants. Sundar brought a suit in the Revenue Court, and got a decree for the partition of the holding on the 18th of September 1898. To that suit the zamindar, Jai Lal, was not a party. Sundar before the suit for partition, had given a lease of half of the holding to the present respondents. It has been found by the lower appellate Court that, on the death of Kallu, Jai Lal, the landholders, authorized the defendant, Ram Lal, who is appellant, to take possession of the land in dispute. The Subordinate Judge has also found on oral and documentary evidence that Ram Lal has been in possession ever since Sundar's lessees served a notice of ejectment on Ram Lal, but on the application of Ram Lal that notice was cancelled, the Assistant Collector holding that no relation of landlord and tenant subsisted between the plaintiffs and the defendant. Then the plaintiff's (Sunder's lessees) on the 2nd of January, 1902, instituted against Ram Lal a suit for possession of the land and for damages. The plaintiff got a decree from the Munsif, which was affirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge. 2. The defendant, Ram Lal, comes here in second appeal. In my opinion the appeal must succeed. When a landholder lets land in the occupation of a tenant to a third ‘ party, and he acting under the landholder's authority, takes possession of the land, then in my opinion the tenant must be deemed to have been ousted by the landholder, and his remedy is a suit under section 79 of Act No. II of 1901, the person claiming through the landholder being joined as a defendant to the suit under a provision of section 81 of the Act. Such a suit must be brought within six months of the date of dispossession. From paragraph 8th of the plaint and also from relief (b), section 14 of the plaint, it appears that the plaintiff and their lessor, Sundar, have been out of possession for three years previous to the suit. Such a suit must be brought within six months of the date of dispossession. From paragraph 8th of the plaint and also from relief (b), section 14 of the plaint, it appears that the plaintiff and their lessor, Sundar, have been out of possession for three years previous to the suit. In point of fact the lower appellate Court has found on the issue referred that although Sundar got her name recorded, yet neither she nor the plaintiffs who claim under her, ever attained actual possession of the holding. Be this as it may, it is clear that Sundar has been out of possession for more than six months since the time she was dispossessed through the action of the landholder. Consequently, having regard to what is said at page, 208 of the judgment in Dalip Rai v. Deoki Rai, [1899] I.L.R., 21 All., 204. the occupancy of the land was extinguished, and with the extinguishment of her right, of the plaintiffs, her lessees disappear. The result is that I allow this appeal, and, setting aside the decrees of the Courts below, dismiss the plaintiffs' suit with costs in all Courts.