JUDGMENT Sundara Aiyar, J. 1. The plaintiff instituted this suit for compensation for use and occupation of his land by the defendants in Fastis 1316 and 1317. Both the Courts have passed a decree in his favour. The facts found are, that the defendants originally entered into possession of the land under an oral agreement to take a lease for Faslis 1313 to 1317. A khat was to be executed subsequently. But the defendants did not execute any such instrument but continued to be in possession of the land. It is contended that the defendants must be regarded as the plaintiffs tenants, and the suit being for rent for a period prior to the enactment of the Estates Land Act, the plaintiff could not maintain the suit without having tendered a patta for each of the years. Bat the finding is that the defendants did not in fact become the tenants of plaintiff. They came into possession, no doubt, with plaintiffs permission, but what was legally required to make them tenants, namely the execution of a khat was not done by them. Reliance is placed an the fact that plaintiff instituted a previous suit for compensation for use and occupation for Faslis 1313 to 1315, and that suit was settled between the parties by payment of a certain sum to the plaintiff. The District Judge finds that the compromise did not recognize the defendants as tenants and that the amount was not accepted by the plaintiff as rent, The legal effect of the compromise, therefore, merely was that the defendants- being bound to pay compensation for occupying plaintiffs land, satisfied their liability by payment of a certain amount. This did not alter the relation which previously existed between the parties, namely, that of permissive occupation by the defendants without the creation of a legal tenancy, that is exactly the kind of case, where an owner of land would be entitled to compensation for use and occupation. Mr. Prakasam relies on a case reported in Ali Khan v. Appadu 7 M. 304. There the defendant was admittedly the plaintiffs tenant and a suit instituted for rent had failed. He then instituted another suit claiming compensation for use and occupation. Mr. Prakasam relies on a case reported in Ali Khan v. Appadu 7 M. 304. There the defendant was admittedly the plaintiffs tenant and a suit instituted for rent had failed. He then instituted another suit claiming compensation for use and occupation. It was held that compensation for land occupied by defendant as a tentant was in reality rent due by him as tenant and no suit could be instituted to enforce his obligation without satisfying the requirements of Section 7 of the Rent. Recovery Act by tendering a proper patta. That case has no application to the circumstances of this case, where, according to the finding, the defendants never became the tenants of the plaintiffs at law. I reject the second appeal.