JUDGMENT Drake Brockman S.M., J. - The Appellants sued Kallu Singh for ejectment as their sub-tenant u/s 86. Kallu Singh Respondent said that he was in possession by admission of the landholder. The Assistant Collector decreed his ejectment. The learned Additional Commissioner set aside this order. He writes: I find that the circumstances of this holding were fully considered in a suit between the parties for the arrears of rent on account of 1337 to 1339 F., decided by the Tahsildar on 20th July, 1932. The officer in a careful and convincing judgment found that the Plaintiffs had been out of possession for some years and were being improperly supported by the patwari since Defendants had been put in as tenants-in-chief. I therefore allow the appeal. 2. The decision of a Tahsildar in a suit for arrears of rent does not operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit for ejectment, as laid down in Pashupat Partap Singh v. Shambhu Prasad Singh (1933) 17 R. D. 314. Unless the learned Additional Commissioner was under the impression that such a judgment did operate as res judicata, it is difficult to understand his remarks. He does not discuss the evidence for and against the issue is the Respondent sub-tenant of the Appellants. 3. The evidence in favour of the Appellants is the entry of Kallu Singh as their sub-tenant on a rent of Rs. 6 per annum from 1335 onwards and the evidence of the patwari that a contract of sub-tenancy was entered into in his presence. But there is-equally no evidence of rent having been paid or even settled between Kallu Singh and the landholder, nor is there any evidence of formal admission except his own statement. The fact seems to be that the holding belonged to two women, Mst. Surjia and Mst. Turshia. The former is alleged to have re-married and the latter to have died. Thereupon Kallu Singh with or without the consent of the landholder took possession of the holding. But there is no evidence that Mst. Surjia re-married and lost her rights or when Mst. Turshia died. From the records it would appear that she died in 1337 or 1338. Kallu Singh could have summoned the landholder to give evidence in his favour, if there had been an admission, and this he did not do. But there is no evidence that Mst. Surjia re-married and lost her rights or when Mst. Turshia died. From the records it would appear that she died in 1337 or 1338. Kallu Singh could have summoned the landholder to give evidence in his favour, if there had been an admission, and this he did not do. On the evidence therefore as it stands the Plaintiffs must be deemed to have made out their case. I would, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Additional Commissioner and restore that of the Assistant Collector with costs and Rs. 10 pleader's fees. Knox J.M. I agree.