JUDGMENT Knox J.M., J. - In this case the Plaintiff sued to eject the Defendant u/s 44. He proved that he had ejected the Defendant about ten years ago, that the land of which the area is 30 of an acre lay fallow in 1331-1335 F., and that he cultivated it himself in 1336. 2. The Defendant claims that he was re-admitted, and has been cultivating for about 4 years. His written reply is vague, and he does not allege when or in what circumstances he was readmitted. The trial Court remarks-that it attaches little weight to the evidence of the two witnesses produced by the Defendant, but in the absence of rebutting evidence it accepts the entry in the papers made by the patwari, and thinks that the receipts produced probably indicate that the Defendant paid some rent for the land in suit. 3. The learned Commissioner upheld the order dismissing the plaint on the ground that he believed that the Defendant have been cultivating for about four years, but he did not believe that the Defendant had been paying rent for the land in suit. 4. It is evident that the burden of proving his admission to the holding lay on the Defendant, and where a Defendant has been ejected from certain land, he may fairly be expected to produce clear proof of re-admission. The law allows a limitation of 12 years in Section 44 cases, and the Board have pointed out more than once that it is not reasonable to draw an inference adverse to the landlord merely because he takes no action for three or four or more years. There are circumstances in which his inaction for a considerable period of time might be evidence in favour of the view that he had consented to the cultivation of land by a tenant. But in this case I do not see that there are any such circumstances The plot in suit is a small one, up against the abadi, and the landlord lives in another village; it is therefore quite probable that he was not aware that the Defendant had cultivated this land in 1337 F., and the following years. I feel that the lower Courts did not realise that the burden of proving re-admission lay on the Defendant, and in my opinion he has failed to discharge it. I feel that the lower Courts did not realise that the burden of proving re-admission lay on the Defendant, and in my opinion he has failed to discharge it. I would allow the appeal with costs in all Courts and Rs. 15 pleader's fees, and I would order the ejectment of the Defendant and allow Rs. 2 damages to the Plaintiff. Drake Brockman S. M. 5. I agree.