JUDGMENT Knox J.M., J. - This is a second appeal in two cases in which Girwar Singh sued for a declaration that he was an ex-proprietary tenant of the holdings in dispute. He had given a usufructuary mortgage of his property to one Bed Ram, father of Pop Singh, by a deed dated 1914 and had been declared ex-proprietary tenant of seven plots. In March, 1933, he gave notice that he intended to surrender his tenancy. In July, 1933, he sold five plots to Pop Singh, the son of Bed Ram and one plot to Bharat Singh. It is in evidence that no zaid or Kharif crops were sown, but in regard to the land sold to Pop Singh a dispute arose during the Rabi and both sides claimed to have sown the fields. 2. The learned Assistant Collector dismissed both suits without coming to a definite finding about possession. He accepted the argument given in the Board's judgment in the case of Seth Mahabir Prasad v. Ram Chand, village Kandli, pargana Hasangarh, district Aligarh, petition No. 77 of 1931-32. In this it was held that the law regarding surrender had been changed in the Tenancy Act of 1926, and that a notice of intention to surrender, if accepted by the landlord, was itself a complete surrender. 3. There are very few changes in the wording of Sections 103-106 in the new Act which correspond to Sections 83--86 of Act II of 1901, and there are certainly no words which would justify identifying a notice of intention to surrender with the actual surrender. Section 103 (1) provides that a tenant may, at the end of any agricultural year, surrender his holding. Sub-section (2) provides that, notwithstanding such surrender, the tenant shall be liable for the rent of the holding, unless before the Ist day of April he has given written notice of his intention to surrender. This wording clearly maintains the distinction between a notice of surrender and an actual surrender, which has always involved " ceasing to cultivate." 4. It is true that the wording in regard to extinction of tenancies has been altered in Section 35 of the new Act. This runs that the interest of a tenant shall be extinguished by surrender u/s 103 or abandonment u/s 107. It is true that the wording in regard to extinction of tenancies has been altered in Section 35 of the new Act. This runs that the interest of a tenant shall be extinguished by surrender u/s 103 or abandonment u/s 107. In Act II of 190 L the wording was that a right of occupancy shall be extinguished in a holding, which the tenant had abandoned, or surrendered after service upon the landholder of a notice of surrender. The wording in the old Act is not so precise as the wording in Act III of 1926. The present Act refers to Section 103 to explain "how a surrender is to be made and to Section 107 to show in what conditions abandonment can be presumed But I can find nothing in the change of the wording to justify the conclusion that a notice of surrender, if accepted by the landlord, can be identified with actual surrender. AH that the wording of the law provides is that, if the tenant fails to give notice in time, in spite of the actual surrender, he remains liable for the rent of the following year unless the landlord can make use of the land. Therefore with all respect to the views expressed by our learned predecessors in the case of Seth Mahabir Prasad v. Ram Chand, I would hold that in order to constitute surrender of a holding there must be an actual "ceasing to cultivate." 5. The learned Commissioner in both cases discussed the evidence in regard to possession. In appeal No. 9 he concluded that he would accept the evidence that Pop Singh sowed the Rabi. The evidence is supported by the statements of two witnesses Balkishan and Panna, and some support is also found to the view that Girwar Singh did actually relinquish his holding, in the fact that no one sowed any Kharif. This omission is much more probable if Girwar had relinquished his holding than he had not. Again as the learned Commissioner has pointed out, the probabilities are that if Girwar Singh's story were true, and if he has been the victim of a plot to cheat him out of his rights, then the vendees would have taken good care to take possession. In the other appeal No. 10 the Commissioner found that there can be no doubt whatsoever that Bharat Singh both obtained and retained possession. 6. In the other appeal No. 10 the Commissioner found that there can be no doubt whatsoever that Bharat Singh both obtained and retained possession. 6. Accordingly in any view of the case I would hold that Girwar Singh lost his ex-proprietary rights by actual surrender, before his sale to Pop Singh and Bharat Singh took place. The rights cannot revive, and the appeal will be dismissed with costs and Rs. 20 pleader's fees. Drake Brockman S.M. 7. I agree.