H.D. Ujjwal -This second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment and compensation filed by the plaintiff-respondent. 2. The plaintiff holds to bighas of land in Islimrar which had been given on ijara to the defendant from year to year for cutting of grass and pala. It was given for Rs. 13/- for the year Smt. 2003 under a Navisht dated Asad Sudi 13, Smt. 2003. On expiry of this period, the plaintiff wanted the defendant to vacate the land but the defendant refused to do so and cut the grass and pala on the land for which the plaintiff claims Rs. 75/-as compensation as the price of the grass cut from the land. The S.D.O. decreed the suit for Rs. 40/- as price of 20 Mds. of grass which he found the defendant had cut from the land during the year Smt. 2004. As regards ejectment the suit was stayed under sec. 5 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949. The defendant appealed to the Commissioner who rejected it and upheld the order of the S.D.O. The defendant has now come up in second appeal to this court. 3. So far as facts are concerned they are admitted by both the parties. The question is, how much amount should be released from the defendant for remaining in possession of land after the expiry of the period for which ijara had been given to him. The plaintiff treats the defendant as a tresspasser and wants compensation for illegal occupation of land. As the defendant has been given ijara of this land by the plaintiff every year for the last several years and he had not vacated the land as the Protection of Tenants Ordinance had come into force the defendant cannot be treated as a trespasser. He is really a tenant holding over and has been protected from ejectment under the Ordinance. The rent payable in the case of such tenants is the rent previously payable by them unless it is varied in accordance with the provision of law. 4. It has been urged by the plaintiff-respondent that the defendant should not be treated as a tenant as he was given the ijara for cutting of grass and pala from year to year. 5. 4. It has been urged by the plaintiff-respondent that the defendant should not be treated as a tenant as he was given the ijara for cutting of grass and pala from year to year. 5. Rent has been defined in the Jaipur Tenancy Act as whatever is, in cash or kind, or partly in cash and partly in kind, payable on account of the use or occupation of land or on account of any right in land and includes sayar. 6. Sayar has been defined as whatever is to be paid or delivered by a lessee or licensee on account of the right of gathering produce, forest rights, fisheries and the like. 7. The definition of rent and sayar is nearly the same in the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, also. Therefore, the defendant who paid cash as a lessee on account of the right of gathering grass and pala from the land would come under the definition of tenant. As such he was protected from ejectment under the provisions of Protection of Tenants Ordinance and cannot be treated as trespasser if he refused to vacate the land and has to be treated as a tenant. He is, therefore, liable to pay only rent and not anything by way of compensation or penalty for remaining in possession of this land The question, therefore, remains what rent he should be held liable to pay to the plaintiff, landlord. According to sec. 91 (2) of Jaipur State—G.T.A. a person admitted to the occupation of a holding during the currency of settlement is liable to such rent as may be agreed upon between him and his landholder. The rent agreed in this case was Rs. 13/-. 8 According to sec. 92 of the same Act the rent or rate of rent payable by tenant shall be presumed to be the rent or rate of rent previously payable by him until it is varied in accordance with the provisions of sec. 94. 9. It is thus clear that the rent payable by the defendant shall be the rent previously paid by him and not the value of grass actually cut from the land. The purpose of protection sought to be given by the Ordinance will be set at naught if the total value of the produce is realised from such a tenant. 9. It is thus clear that the rent payable by the defendant shall be the rent previously paid by him and not the value of grass actually cut from the land. The purpose of protection sought to be given by the Ordinance will be set at naught if the total value of the produce is realised from such a tenant. The two lower courts have not considered this aspect of the question and mis-directed themselves. 10. I would, therefore, with the concurrence of my learned colleague, accept the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the two lower courts and decree the suit for Rs. 13/- as rent to be paid by the defendant till the rent is varied in accordance with the law. Jai Krit Singh—1 Concur.