Judgment Imam, J. 1. The plaintiffs are the appellants and they have appealed against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya, who reversed the decision of the fourth additional Munsif of Aurangabad. The appellants had filed a suit for the ejectment of the defendants from plot No. 121 in tauzi No. 4932 with an area of .04 acres. It was the case of the plaintiffs that this land was gairmazrua malik and that on a private partition amongst the landlords, plot NO. 121 had fallen to the plaintiffs takhta. Their further case, as argued before the trial Court, though not in their plaint, was that the defendants were inducted on to the land to render service and that when they ceased to render service, they were liable to be ejected from the plot in question. The plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants were co-sharer landlords to the extent of two annas eight pies in tauzi NO. 4932. The pro forma defendants supported the case of the plaintiffs. By the expression the defendants in this Judgment, I do not include the pro forma defendants. 2. The facts found by the lower appellate Court are that the defendants are settled raiyats of village Nirmal Bigha, which is contiguous to village Tendua, in which plot No. 121 is situated, that the defendants were not inducted on to the land to render service to the plaintiffs, that defendant 1 has been cultivating the land on batai in village Tendua for the last fifteen years or so, and that the defendants have been living in the house on plot No. 121 for the last three generations. 3. On the questions of law, the lower appellate Court was of the opinion that as defendant 1 had taken settlement of land in village Tendua at a later date than plot No. 121, it was. debatable as to whether the defendants could acquire occupancy right in plot NO. 121. Relying upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Bhikcariram Bhagat V/s. Maharaj Bahadur Singh, A. I. R. (3) 1916 Cal. 60 : (43 Cal 195), it was of the opinion that although the defendants were settled raiyats of village Nirmal Bigha and had acquired occupancy rights there, the provisions of Sec.182, Bihar. 121. Relying upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Bhikcariram Bhagat V/s. Maharaj Bahadur Singh, A. I. R. (3) 1916 Cal. 60 : (43 Cal 195), it was of the opinion that although the defendants were settled raiyats of village Nirmal Bigha and had acquired occupancy rights there, the provisions of Sec.182, Bihar. Tenancy Act, came to their aid with regard to plot No. 121 in village Tendua which was their homestead land, and the incidents of its tenancy were regulated by the provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Act applicable to lands held by a raiyat. In the opinion of the lower appellate Court, it made no difference that the homestead land was in village Tendua while the lands held in occupancy were in Nirmal Bigha a contiguous village. It rejected the contention of the plaintiffs that Sec.183 of the Act could only be applied if the raiyat holds the homestead land is the same village as the land held by him as a raiyat. The lower appellate Court referred to several decisions of this Court, to which reference will be made but was of the opinion that cone of them actually dissented from the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Bhikariram Bhagat V/s. Maharaj Bahadur Singh, A. I. R. (3) 1916 cal. 60 (43 Cal. 195). It accordingly held that the defendants could not be ejected and that the plaintiffs suit must be dismissed. 4. In this Court, this appeal came up for hearing before Das J. who was of the opinion that the appeal should be heard by a Division Bench. 5. On the findings, it must be assumed that the defendants were settled raiyats of village Nirmal Bigha and has acquired occupancy right therein. It must also be assumed that village Nirmal Bigha is contiguous to village Tendua. where plot No. 121 is situated. It is necessary then to examine in the first instance the provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Act contained in Sections 182 and 21. It must also be assumed that village Nirmal Bigha is contiguous to village Tendua. where plot No. 121 is situated. It is necessary then to examine in the first instance the provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Act contained in Sections 182 and 21. Section 182 reads as follows: "When a raiyat holds his homestead otherwise than as part of his holding as a raiyat, the incidents of his tenancy to the homestead shall be regulated by local custom or usage and subject to local custom or usage by she provisions of this Act applicable to the land held by a raiyat." It is clear on the findings that the defendants were raiyats and that they held the Sand, plot No. 121, as their homestead otherwise than as part of their holding. The question is as to how the incidents of their tenancy to the homestead shall be regulated. There is no question of custom or usage in this case as none has been pleaded or proved. Therefore, the incidents of their tenancy to the homestead will be regulated by the provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Act applicable to the land held by them as raiyat. On a plain reading of the section, the position comes to this, that the defendants were raiyats and held lands-as raiyats while they possessed the homestead land, plot No 121. Sec.182 speaks nothing of the homestead land being held by the raiyat in the same village as the raiyati land held by him. It has been held again and again that Sec.182, should be given a liberal interpretation, the main purpose of its provisions being to afford some protection to the raiyat with reference to the homestead. The argument on the other hand that the raiyati land held by the raiyat must be in the same village as his homestead land is, I think, largely based on the wording of the provisions of Sec.21, Bihar Tenancy Act. Sub-clause (1) of that section says that a settled raiyat of a village shall have the right of occupancy in all lands for the time being held by him as a raiyat in that village. Sub-clause (2) need not be specifically referred to, but it is noticeable that in that clause also the words "in that village" appear. Sub-clause (1) of that section says that a settled raiyat of a village shall have the right of occupancy in all lands for the time being held by him as a raiyat in that village. Sub-clause (2) need not be specifically referred to, but it is noticeable that in that clause also the words "in that village" appear. It was suggested that because a person may be a settled raiyat of a village Within the meaning of Sec.20 of the Act and that he could thereby acquire a right of occupancy in all lands held by him in the same village as a raiyat, therefore Sec.182 of the Act must necessarily refer to such a person having homestead in the same village as the land held by him. In my opinion, Sec.182 of the Act does not create a holding, nor does it confer any particular status to the person who holds homestead land. It merely sets out a protective measure to the holder of homestead land if he is raiyat, and the protection given is in the absence of custom or usage, what would be applicable under the Act to the land held by such a person as a raiyat. Mr. Aditya Narain Lal has relied upon certain observations of Sinha J. in Mahadeo. ashram Prosad V/s. Parikha Choudhury, A. I. R. (32) 1945 Pat. 428: (24 Pat. 366). The real point decided in that case was as to whether Sec.26A, Bihar Tenancy Act, was applicable to the transfer of a homestead land. In considering this main question, his Lordship referred to an observation of Rampini J. in Golam Mowla V/s. Abdool Sowar, 13 C. L. J. 255 : (9 I. C. 922) to the following effect: "Even though the defendant is not a raiyat in respect of this piece of bastu land in dispute between the parties, still under Sec.182, the provisions of this Act applicable to land held by a raiyat are applicable to this particular piece of land, in other words, he has, under Sec.21, a right of occupancy is this piece of bastu land as well in the agricultural land is village of which he is a settled raiyat." Sinha, J. as to this observed: "I am not sure whether the learned Judge has not stated the result of the application of Sec.182 a little too broadly. Sec.182 does not say in so many words that a raiyat, holding his homestead otherwise than as a part of his holding as a raiyat, shall acquire in the homestead all the rights, and be subject to all the liabilities, that he has as a raiyat in his holding. If it had said that, certainly the homestead would have constituted a separate raiyati holding with all the incidents of such a holding. What Sec.182 lays down, in my opinion, inter alia, is that a raiyat shall not be ejected from his homestead, so long as he continues to be a raiyat of some land in the village; for example Sec.182 does not have the effect of making the raiyat liable for payment of rent for the homestead portion on the same terms as he holds his raiyati land, though in this case, as in other oases, the land is belagan." Emphasis is laid on the words "so long as he continues to be a raiyat of some land in the village." The facts of the case, however, make it clear that the question of land is different villages did not arise and his Lordship was not considering as to what is the proper construction to be given to the provisions of Sec.182 in circumstances such as appear in the present case, It may be noticed at this stage that although their Lordships in Mahadeoashram Pro. sad V/s. Parikha Ghoudhury, A. I. R. (32) 1945 Pat, 428 : (24 pat. 366) held, though Sinha J. did so hesitatingly, that Sec.26A, Bihar Tenancy Act, was applicable to a transfer of homestead land, the Full Bench of this Court in Harinarain Singh V/s. Babui Mohari, A. I. R. (36) 1949 pat. 413 : (30 P. L. T. 403 F. B.) took definitely a contrary view. 6 Mr. Lal then referred to the ease of Bishnath Singh V/s. Mt. Bibi Ayesha, 11 P. L. T. 107 : (A. I. R. (17) 1930 pat. 224). In this case,, however, the lands were in the same village and the question, which is for our present consideration, did not come up for consideration. 7. Mr. Lal then referred to the case of Ganga Singh V/s. Chairman District Board, Patna, A. I. R. (6) 1919 Pat. 224). In this case,, however, the lands were in the same village and the question, which is for our present consideration, did not come up for consideration. 7. Mr. Lal then referred to the case of Ganga Singh V/s. Chairman District Board, Patna, A. I. R. (6) 1919 Pat. 108 : (50 I. C. 8) where their Lordships said of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Kripanath V/s. Seikh Ann, 4 C. L. J. 332: (10:C. W. N. 944), that that decision was very far-reaching and may under suitable conditions require further judicial consideration in this Province. Their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court in the said decision said that it was not required by Sec.182, Bihar Tenancy Act, that a tenant in occupation of homestead land should be a raiyat in the village in which the homestead land is situated. In the case before their Lordships the defendants held culturable lands in the immediate vicinity of their homestead but situated in a different village, but that would not in their opinion prevent the application of the provision of Sec.182 of the Act. The learned Judges were Rampini and Moohkerjee JJ. (late Sir Ashutosh Mookherjee). The view of these eminent Judges cannot be easily brushed aside. 8. Mr. Brahmdeo Narain, on the other hand, has asked us to construe Sec.182 in such a way as not to make the reading of it leading to absurdities. He urged that the word homestead in Sec.182 must necessarily mean land from which the tenant cultivates his land, that is to say that the tenant uses the homestead laud for the purpose of his residence and that land is either; adjacent to the land which he cultivates or in dose proximity to it. The word homestead could not possibly be read to mean land on which the tenant hag a house in which he resides and from which he does not do his cultivation. If what ho suggested is to be the true meaning of the word homestead, then obviously in the largest number of oases, such land would be either adjacent or in close proximity to the land which the tenant actually cultivated. He first referred to the case of Pogode V/s. Rajoo Dhopee, 22 W. R. 511. If what ho suggested is to be the true meaning of the word homestead, then obviously in the largest number of oases, such land would be either adjacent or in close proximity to the land which the tenant actually cultivated. He first referred to the case of Pogode V/s. Rajoo Dhopee, 22 W. R. 511. Although this decision was before the Bengal Tenancy Act was enacted, it seems to me that the observations made by Markby J. in the casa are relevant. The land was described as bastoo land, which his Lordship explained as lands upon which houses stand, inhabited by persons engaged in agriculture and are adjacent to the lands which the raiyats who inhabit those houses cultivate and that it would appear that they are held of the same landlord as the lands which are cultivated. His Lordship further observed that distinction has frequently been drawn between the houses in a town and what are called homestead lands of raiyats engaged in agriculture, and the general rule laid down is that although Act x [10] of 1859 did not apply to the former, yet it applied to the latter. The homestead land, it seems to me, is prima facie the land where the home of the agriculturist is situated and in which he resides. It may be that the agriculturist has lands at some distance from the homestead land, but he cultivates his agricultural land by going to it for that purpose from his homestead land. There is, therefore, necessarily some connection between his agricultural land and homestead land. 9. The next case referred to by Mr. Brahmdeo Narain is Dina Nath V/s. Sashi Mohan, 31 I. C. 16 : (A. I. R. (3) 1916 Cal. 730), a decision of the Calcutta High Court of a Bench consisting of Sir Ashutosh Mukherji and Newbould J. Their Lordships relied upon several cases including the decision of Rampini J. in Kripa Nath V/s. Saikh Anu, 4 C. L. J. 332: (10 C. W. N. 944) for the proposition that in order to make Sec.182 applicable it was not essential that the homestead should be in the same village or be held under the same landlord as the holding of the raiyat. 10. 10. In the case of Pratap Chandra V/s. Biseswar Paramanick, 9 C. W. N. 416 the, position was that the raiyat was holding agricultural land under one landlord and the homestead land under another. 11. In Harihar V/s. Dinu Bera, 16 C. W. N. 536 : (10 I. C. 139), the position was that the raiyat was holding his agricultural land in one village and his homestead land in another village and under different landlords. Sir Ashutosh Mookerjee and Teunon JJ. were definitely of the opinion that the provisions of Sec.182, Bengal Tenancy Act applied. 12. It seems to me, therefore, that the tendency of the Calcutta High Court has been to apply the provisions of Sec.182, Bengal Tenancy Act, in the case of a raiyat who holds his homestead land in one village and has agricultural land in another, provided the lands in the two villages are either adjacent or in close proximity. In Bengal, there has been an amendment in 1928 of Sec.182, Bengal Tenancy Act, where it has been made perfectly clear that its provisions would apply whether the holding of a raiyat was within the same village as his homestead oR in another village contiguous to that. I take it that the amendment was in conformity with the case law as to be found in Bengal. Mr. A. N. Lal frankly conceded that he had not found a single ease from Calcutta taking a contrary view to that which has been expressed in the cases of that Court, which I have already referred to, nor a single decision of this Court taking specifically a different view. 13. Mr. A. N. Lal, however, relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Harinarain Singh V/s. Babui Mohari, A.I.R. (36) 1949 Pat. 413 : (30 P. L. T. 403 F. B.), to show that it was held by their Lordships that the provisions of Sec.26A, Bihar Tenancy Act, has no application to transfer of homestead lands. It seems to me, however, that the provisions of Sec.182, Bihar Tenancy Act, do not create a homestead land into an occupancy holding. These provisions merely extend to it in the absence of local custom or usage the provisions of the Act applicable to the land held by a raiyat. If a raiyat has occupancy holding with occupancy rights, the incidents of the tenancy of his homestead would be regulated accordingly. These provisions merely extend to it in the absence of local custom or usage the provisions of the Act applicable to the land held by a raiyat. If a raiyat has occupancy holding with occupancy rights, the incidents of the tenancy of his homestead would be regulated accordingly. This, however, does not mean that his homestead is an occupancy holding. Sec.26A refers to the case of a transfer of an occupancy holding or a portion of it together with right of occupancy therein. It seems to ma that the decision of their Lordships in the Pull Bench case does not affect the question which we have to consider in the pre-sent case. 14. Having regard to the view taken by the Calcutta High Court and giving to Sec.182 its true interpretation, although its words are wide, it seems to me that the decision of the Court below, in law, was correct when it took the view that the defendant could not be ejected as he was not a mere tenant-at-will. He had the protection given to his homestead land in the same manner as the protection which he enjoyed with reference to the lands he held, in Nirmal Bigha, namely, right of occupancy, although the two lands were in different villages. 15. Having regard to the view which I take in the case, it is unnecessary to say anything on the other question of law referred to by the lower appellate Court, namely as to whether the lands held by the defendant in village Tendua acquired after Plot No. 121 could give him the protection afforded by Sec.182, Bihar Tenancy Act. 16. I would accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs. 17. Sarjoo Prasad J.--I entirely agree. As the question is of some importance, I would like to add a few remarks. The application of Sec.182, Bihar Tenancy Act, to cases where the homestead of the raiyat lies in one village and his raiyati lands in another village has always raised perplexing problems. The curus curiae of the Calcutta High Court seems to be in favour of the view that whether the homestead of the tenant lies in one village and his raiyati lands in another, or whether these two kinds of holdings are held under different landlords, Sec.182, Bengal Tenancy Act, will apply to protect the interest of the tenant. The curus curiae of the Calcutta High Court seems to be in favour of the view that whether the homestead of the tenant lies in one village and his raiyati lands in another, or whether these two kinds of holdings are held under different landlords, Sec.182, Bengal Tenancy Act, will apply to protect the interest of the tenant. In other words, the incidents of his raiyati land will regulate the incidents of his homestead. So far as this Court is concerned, there has been no direct decision upon the point, and in one or two cases where the point did not directly arise, this Court was reluctant to accept the whole effect of the Calcutta view. One of the leading cases of the Calcutta High Court on the point is the decision in Kripanath V/s. Seikh Anu, 4 C. L. J. 332 : (10 C.W.N. 944), the Judgment having been delivered by Rampini J. himself, a reputed authority on land tenures, with which Mookherjee J. another eminent Judge, also agree. The decision of these eminent Judges, as my learned brother has observed cannot be lightly brushed aside. In Gamga Singh V/s. Chairman District Board, Patna, A.I.R. (6) 1919 pat. 108 : (50 I. C. 8), the homestead as well as the raiyati holdings were in the same village, but when the attention of their Lordships was drawn to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Kirpa Nath V/s. Seikh Anu, 4 C.L.J. 332 : (10 C.W.N. 944), they observed that that decision was very far reaching and may under suitable conditions require further judicial consideration in this. Province. To a similar effect is the observation made by Sinha J. in Mahadeoshram Prasad V/s. Parikha Choudhury, 24 Pat. 866 : A. I. R. (82) 1945 Pat. 428. As I said the two cases of this Court, where the observations were made, were oases in which the raiyati holding as also the homestead were situated in the same village, If the observations made by Rampini J. in Kirpa Nath V/s. Seikh Anu, 4 C.L.J. 332 : (10 C.W.N. 944), are intended to mean that although the homestead holding and the raiyati lands of the raiyat are widely apart, situated in distant villages and one having no connection with the other, and yet the raiyat could be entitles, to the benefit of Sec.182, then probably the decision might require some modification. But, in my opinion, the solution of the problem lies in the meaning of the expression homestead as has been rightly suggested by Mr. Brahmdeo Narain for the respondents. The word homestead must mean the homestead land of the tenant in the neighborhood of the raiyati land, or in other words in the vicinity of the raiyati land from where the raiyat carries on his agricultural operations in respect of the raiyati land. If that finding is there, as the finding in this case is, that the cultivation of the raiyati lands by the tenant in village Nirmal Bigha is carried on from village Tendua, where the homestead lands are situated, then in that case Sec.182, Bihar Tenancy Act, must apply to protect the interest of the tenant. That is why the position appears to have been made clear by the amendment of the Bengal Tenancy Act in 1928, as pointed out by the Calcutta High Court in Indra Chand V/s. Tinkari Ghost, A I. R. (37) 1950 cal. 170. The amendment there, as my learned brother has shown, is to the effect that if the homestead land is in any village "contiguous" to the village where the raiyati lands lie, the incident of his homestead will be governed by the incident of his tenancy. In my opinion, the term "homestead" although not actually defined in the Bihar Tenancy Act, carries the same implication.