JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J.:— The plaintiffs, who are the zaminclars of the village, brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for possession of two plots of land and for removal of buildings built thereupon, on the allegation that the defendants had recently encroached on the land. The defendants, who are tenants, contended that the buildings were their ancestral dwelling houses. It has been found that the defendants are cul-tivatory tenants in the village, that they built these houses more than twelve years ago and that they have been residing in them as such cultivatory tenants. It is therefore clear that the buildings are appurtenant to their holding, and so long as they? cultivate lands in the village they are entitled to occupy the buildings. If they are not in possession as tenants, their possession would be deemed to be adverse. In either case the plaintiffs are not entitled to eject them. This suit is similar to that of Nazir Hasan v. Shihba, [1904] I.L.R., 27 All, 81.. The other case which has been cited to me appears to have been decided with reference to the particular facts of that case. No question arises as to the extent of the holding of the defendants. Since they are agricultural tenants in the village and the buildings in question have been found to be appurtenant to their holding, they are entitled to occupy them. This appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.