JUDGMENT Bomford, J.M. 1. The facts in this case are fairly clear. Bakhtawar and Manna were muqaddams of the Jagirdar. The rights of Bakhtawar, whatever they were, were transferred to the predecessor-in-interest of Mst. Dulara the Appellant, in 1893, as a result of foreclosure of a mortgage. The transferee was recorded in the papers as occupancy tenant, as the transferor had been recorded in the khewat of 1301 F. The village lapsed to Government and was recently given to Captain Narain Singh, who applied to have the status of the Appellant changed to statutory tenants. 2. I would say at once that in my opinion the application should never have been accepted. It is true that there was a dispute about the status of son admitted"' to be a tenant, and that such a dispute has to be decided under the Land Revenue Act in accordance with the provisions of Section 42, but there had been no change and no clerical error which would justify proceedings under the Land Revenue Act. It is perhaps unfortunate that under the Oudh Rent Act the zamindar cannot, as he can under the Agra Tenancy Act, sue for a declaration as to the class to which a tenant belongs but it is always open to him to challenge the. recorded status of a tenant by a regular suit. If the zamindar had sued, for the enhancement of the rent of the Appellant u/s 108 (3) read with Section 39, the status of the Defendant would have been in issue and could have been decided as well in such a suit as in this correction suit. 3. I do not however propose to quash the proceedings in this case over which a great deal of time and labour have been spent in view of the fact that in Jai Narayan Misra v. Bansidhar, (1935) 16 U. D. 682.in which the facts were very similar, the Board took the view that the case was tribal u/s 42 Land Revenue Act after the Commissioner had dismissed it on the ground this the case did not come within the scope of correction sections. 4. That oases prima facie decides the present appeal. 4. That oases prima facie decides the present appeal. But the Counsel for the Appellant, argues that his case can be distinguished on the ground that the Board held that the transferors in the case before them were persons who had a right to have been recorded as occupancy tenants as having been proprietors, of the village. No occupancy right acquired u/s 5 of the Act can be transferred and hence the Board held that the transferees were only statutory tenants. In this case the transferors were only muqaddams and not proprietors', so had no claim at all to occupancy rights. Hence if such rights were sold in execution of a decree of Court and zamindars took no step to interfere and quash the transaction in 12 years, occupancy rights have accrued to the Appellants. 5. I cannot myself see how, if Bakhtawar had no occupancy rights, he could pass on such rights to his transferee in any case, yet he was undoubtedly recorded as occupancy tenant in the khewat of 1301 Fasli. The heading of the column no doubt shows him and Manna as under-proprietors, which they could not possibly have been, and it is clear that they were entered in the under-proprietary khewat under the Oudh Land Revenue Act of 1876, but as occupancy tenants. The Board held in Jagan Nath v. Ram Charan hall (1931) 12 U.D. 294 that muqaddams might be persons with a right of occupancy to whom the provisions of Section 33 would apply even though they had not got occupancy rights u/s 5. There is no need in this case to go into the rights granted to Bakhtawar and Manna at the first settlement in which they were recorded as tenants. No one in these proceedings has questioned their right to be regarded for practical purposes as occupancy tenants. They were, it may be mentioned, given land as sir and were also given nankar. In view of the ruling in Jagan Nath v. Ram Charan Lal (1931) 12 U.D. 294 referred to above, I cannot distinguish this case from the case reported in Jai Natain v. Bansidhar. (1935) 16 U. D. 682. They were, it may be mentioned, given land as sir and were also given nankar. In view of the ruling in Jagan Nath v. Ram Charan Lal (1931) 12 U.D. 294 referred to above, I cannot distinguish this case from the case reported in Jai Natain v. Bansidhar. (1935) 16 U. D. 682. The Appellant refers in this connection to Mohammad Zaki v. Rashid Ali (1919) 3 U.D. 562 in which the Board distinguished between a qabzadari right acquired in 1868 and an occupancy right u/s 5; it was held that if the landlord consented to the transfer of that qabzadari tenure and the circumstances of the case showed that the landlords had so consented to the transfer, the transferees would not be liable to ejectment by notice. In that case however qabzadari rights were conferred by an agreement embodied in a decree and the landlord definitely recognized one transferee as qabzadar by purchase. 6. There is no evidence that the landlord has ever recognised the transferee of Bakhtawar as occupancy tenant except the fact that he has accepted the occupancy rent from him. That merely means that he has been admitted as tenant. 7. Following then the ruling is Jai Narayan v. Bansidhar (supra) I would hold with the Commissioner that Appellant is only a statutory tenant and the appeal is dismissed with costs and Rs. 16 pleader's fee.