JUDGMENT : STANLEY, C.J.:— In this case the defendants-appellants were formerly zemindars of a village but lost that status and became ex-proprietary tenants and continued to live in the houses previously occupied by them as zemindars. They allege that 14 or 15 years ago they built additional houses in the abadi and claim to be owners of them. The suit out of which this Letters Patent Appeal has arisen was brought for the demolition of the houses or in the alternative for the payment in respect of them of a small annual rent. The defence which the defendants set up is that they are the proprietors of the site of the houses in question having been in adverse possession of it for more than 12 years. The Court of First instance decreed the plaintiffs' claim and this decree was upheld by the lower appellate Court. 2. Upon appeal to a learned Judge of this High Court the decree of the Court below was affirmed. We think that the view taken by the learned Judge of this Court and by the Courts below was correct. There is nothing to show that the defendants-appellants ever acquired any right by adverse possession as against the zamindars. The mere fact, if it be the case that they built the houses in question in the abadi some 14 years ago, is not of itself sufficient to establish a title as against the zemindars by adverse possession. The learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the decision in the case of Nazir Hasan v. Shibba, [1904] 1 A.L.J.R., 479., which is a ruling by this Bench, as applicable to the present case. We are of opinion that that case is not in point. There a tenant had been occupying a room in the abadi for a period of 30 years and this room was the only residence which he possessed. This Court held that he could not be ousted during the continuance of the tenancy; that if the house was not appurtenant to the land of which he was tenant, he must be taken to have acquired a right of occupation by adverse possession, but that if it was appurtenant to the holding, he could not be ousted during the continuance of the tenancy. We do not think that that case’ governs the case before us. We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.