JUDGMENT Daniels, J. - The plaintiffs appellants are zemindars of mauza Buopur the defendants are occupancy tenants in the same village. The present suit was brought by the plaintiffs for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from making use of a way through fields Nos. 131, 505 and 505. The suit was filed on the 9th August 1920 and the allegation in the plaint was that the defendants only began to make use of the way through this land from December 1919. The Court below differing from the Munsif finds that the way in reality is an old way which had been in use since the time of the settlement nearly 30 years ago and has dismissed the suit. In appeal to this Court it was objected that the Subordinate Judge did not state the precise ground on which he based his judgment, and it was argued that even if the way was an old one the zamindar was entitled to close it. Under the Full Bench ruling as Udit Singh v. Kashi Ram (1) a tenant could not acquire by prescription an easement against his landlord and it was found by the trial Court and not disputed in appeal that the right claimed was not an easement of necessity in the technical sense. The defendants when challenged asserted that they claimed the right as a customary right or as a customary easement under S. 18 of the Easements Act. It was pointed out that the first illustration to S. 18 expressly recognises that a tenant may have a customary right of easement against his landlord. I thereupon remitted an issue to the Court below on this plea. The Court below finds that a customary right of easement is established in favour of the defendants. 2. The appellant has challenged this finding on the ground that the Court below has mistaken the nature of customary easement. It is urged that a customary easement is limited to easements of a kind which could not be recognised at all apart from special customs such as the right of pasturage and the right of privacy referred to in the illustrations. Although this is the view taken in Peacock's Easement, I know of no warrant for limiting the term in this manner. Any kind of easement recognised by the custom of the province would surely fall within the meaning of the term. Although this is the view taken in Peacock's Easement, I know of no warrant for limiting the term in this manner. Any kind of easement recognised by the custom of the province would surely fall within the meaning of the term. Now it is in my opinion beyond doubt that according to the customs prevailing in these provinces a zamindar has no right arbitrarily to close a way which has been used by occupancy tenants of the village for 30 years without question or opposition for access to their fields and for removing their produce. The plaintiff himself never claimed any such right. He came into Court (as in all cases of this kind which have ever come up before me) on the allegation that the way was newly made. It is only in the stage of appeal through the mouth of his counsel that he asserts his unrestricted right to close a way however old. If the, right cannot be claimed as an easement I should be prepared to assume a grant of the right as appurtenant to the tenancy from the fact of long user and long acquiescence by the plaintiff. The zamindar having acquiesced in the use of the disputed way by the defendants for a period of 30 years it is too late for him to turn round and deny their right to use it. On his findings of fact the learned Subordinate Judge was in my opinion right in dismissing the suit and I accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.