H.D. Ujjwal—This reference has been made by the Division Bench of this Board. The point of reference was "whether a chhutbhai who receives the land for maintenance from the jagirdar comes under the definition of a tenant and was entitled to protection under the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance. 2. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that a chhutbhai who got the land for maintenance must be considered to be a tenant under the definition given in the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance which was as follows— "Tenant means the person by whom rent is or but for a contract express or implied would be payable, and, except when the contrary intention appears, includes a sub-tenant but does not include trespassers." 3. It is argued that a chhutbhai would be liable to pay rent but on account of implied contract by which he is granted land for maintenance rent is not actually paid by a chhutbhai, therefore, be comes under the definition of a tenant. The opposite party has drawn our attention to the sec. 4, sub-secs. 7, 8, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act, 1947, where definition of estate, estate holder, state grant, state grantee, sub-grant and sub-grantee are given. According to these definitions an estate means land comprising state grant or a sub-grant and an estate holder means the holder of an estate. The sub-grant means a grant of an interest in land made by a state grantee out of state grant. Sub-grantee means the person who holds a sub-grant. 4. According to the above definitions the chhutbhai of a state grantee was clearly a sub-grantee and the sub-grantee is not a tenant. The definition of tenant given in the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act, 1947 is virtually the same as given in the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949. 5. The sub-grantee holds the land with all the rights of state grantee so far as the rights of landlord are concerned. He can let out land to tenants without any restriction of subletting or of any other kind and the restrictions imposed upon a khatedar tenant do not apply to him. 6. He can of course cultivate the land as his khud kasht and so can also a jagirdar or a state grantee and by mere fact of khud kasht the sub-grantee does not become a tenant. 6. He can of course cultivate the land as his khud kasht and so can also a jagirdar or a state grantee and by mere fact of khud kasht the sub-grantee does not become a tenant. 7. We, therefore, hold that a chhutbhai who holds land from a jagirdar does not come under the definition of a tenant under the Ordinance, hence he is not entitled to get the protection given to tenants under that Ordinance. 8. The reference is answered in the negative.