JUDGMENT Malick, C.J. - This is an appeal u/s 12(2) of the Oudh Courts Act read with the Amalgamation Order, 1948. 2. One Ram Padarath died in 1328 Fasli, leaving certain tenancy plots. These plots came into the possession of his widow, Shrimati Maharaj Dei. In 1351 Fasli she obtained from the landlord a lease for a period of ten years renewable after the expiry of that period with liability to have the rent enhanced Maharaj Dei died in 1945. The dispute arose after her death whether the plots came by inheritance to her daughter's sons, who arc the Plaintiff Respondents, or to Ram Padarath's brother and daughter's sons. The answer to the question would depend upon whether Section 36 or Section 37 of the U.P. Tenancy Act of 1939 governed the inheritance. 3. The, plots given on lease to Shrimati Maharaj Dei consist of partly the plots which she had inherited from Ram Padarath and partly some other plots which it was said she got in lieu of the plots which she had to give up to the landlord. 4. The learned single judge was of the opinion that, even it the lease was in respect of the same land which was in Ram Padarath's possession at the time of his death, the case will still be governed by the provisions of Section 37. In the U.P. Tenancy Act elaborate provisions are made about succession to a male tenant and succession to a female tenant Sections relating to succession to a female tenant are Section 36 and 37. The relevant portion of Section 36 is as follows: When a female tenant............who either before or after the commencement of this Act has inherited an interest in a holding as a widow....._ ...dies......... such holding shall, notwithstanding anything in Section 45, devolve in accordance with the order of succession laid down in Section 35 on the heir of the last male tenant, other than a tenant who has inherited as a father's father under the provisions of that section. 5. Section 37 on the other had, provides that "When a female tenant, other than a tenant mentioned in Section 34, or Section 36 dies, her interest in the holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of succession given below:" 6. The fourth heir in order of succession in Section 37 is a daughter's son. 5. Section 37 on the other had, provides that "When a female tenant, other than a tenant mentioned in Section 34, or Section 36 dies, her interest in the holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of succession given below:" 6. The fourth heir in order of succession in Section 37 is a daughter's son. It is admitted that it Section 37 applies the plaintiffs as daughter's sons will be entitled to inherit the property. 7. The point for decision, however, is whether it could be said that Shrimati Maharaj Dei had inherited an interest in the holding in sun as a widow. It was admitted he before the learned single Judge by counsel for both the parties that Ram Padarath had died before the Oudh Rev (Amendment) Act (U.P. Act No. IV of 192(sic)) came into force so that the law applicable at the time of Ram Padarath's death was the Oudh Rent Act of 1886. it is admitted by counsel that under the Oudh Rent Act of 1886 there was no right of inheritance given to an heir at a tenant after the death of the tenant. In that respect the law in Oudh was different from the law in the Agra Province. In Mata Prasad's book, the Rent Law in Oudh the learned author has pointed out that under the first, tenancy Act of 1886 no heritable rights were given in a tenancy. All tenants were tenants at will liable to be arbitrarily evicted at the close of any year on a month's notice. No limitation on the enhancement of rent was prescribed and the courts were even prohibited from enquiring into propriety of rate of rent payable by ordinary tenants. In the Second Oudh Rent Act of 1886 the changes that were made and which are relevant for our purposes are as follows: Every tenant in occupation of land at the time of the passing of the Act as well as every tenant admitted thereafter was given the right to retain possession of his holding for a period of seven years from the date of the last change in his rent or from the last alteration in the area of his holding. In case no such change or alteration had been effected, the period of seven years was to count from the date on which the tenant was originally admitted to the occupation of the holding. Security was thus afforded to the tenant for seven years Ejectment of the tenant or enhancement of his rent was not allowed until after that period. 8. In the year 1921 when Ram Padarath died the only right that Ram Padarath had was to remain in possession for a period of seven years, either from the date when he was admitted to the tenancy, or from the date when the rent had been last enhanced or the area of his holding altered. There is no evidence on the record whether there was any unexpired period of tenancy left, at the time when Ram Padarath died in 1338 F. 9. Section 43 of the Act of 1886 before its amendment in 1921 was as follows: The heir of a tenant who died during the currency of the tenancy of a holding shall be entitled to retain occupation of the holding at the rent payable by the deceased for the unexpired portion of the period for which the deceased tenant might have held without liability to enhancement or ejectment, and to receive compensation under the provisions of this Act for improvements, if any, made on the holding by himself or his predecessor in interest, but shall not be entitled to a renewal of the tenancy. (2) Subject to any rights which he may have u/s 22 as representative of the deceased, a collateral relative who did not at the date of the death of the deceased share in the cultivation of the holding shall not be deemed to be an heir of the deceased within the meaning of this section. 10. Section 22 provided for compensation payable to a tenant for improvements made to the holding. The only right that Maharaj Dei, therefore, had under the Act of l886 to remain in occupation of the holding at the rent payable by Ram Padarath for the unexpired period of seven years and she was not entitled to renewal of the tenancy. 11. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether in these circumstances she can be said to have inherited an interest in the holding is a widow. In Shambhu Datta v. Mst. Ram Raja ILR 1951 All. 11. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether in these circumstances she can be said to have inherited an interest in the holding is a widow. In Shambhu Datta v. Mst. Ram Raja ILR 1951 All. 2S the point was considered by a Bench of this Court and it was held that in these circumstances it could not be said that Section 35 of the U.P. Tenancy Act would govern the inheritance. The facts of that case were that Ram Charan, a tenant, had died in the year 1895 and his widow Mst. Radha came into possession of the holding for the unexpired portion of seven years for which the tenancy had been created. After the expiry of the unexpired portion of seven years she had no right to continue in possession. She, however, continued in possession right up to 1912 when a fresh contract of tenancy was created in her favour and in favour of Bhagwati Prasad, her brother's son, under a contract between them and the landlord. It was pointed out that Section 35 provided for succession to a holding in which the widow had inherited an interest. Where, however, the widow could not be said to have continued to remain in possession of the holding by reason of the fact that she had inherited an interest from her husband and she had acquired an independent right under a fresh contract of tenancy with the landlord Section 36 would not apply. 12. In Bans Ali v. Mohammad Ali 1953 A.W.R. (H.C.) 523, a learned single judge of this Court pointed out that where a widow had no right to continue in possession of a holding and the landlord was entitled to eject her from the same, if she obtained a fresh lease from the landlord she could not be said to have inherited an interest from her husband and Section 36 would not apply. The facts of that case were very similar. Akbar Ali died and he was succeeded by his widow. The year when Akbar Ali died was not known, but it was presumed that he must have died before the Oudh Rent Act was amended by Act IV of 1921 which came into force on the 11th of February, 1922. The facts of that case were very similar. Akbar Ali died and he was succeeded by his widow. The year when Akbar Ali died was not known, but it was presumed that he must have died before the Oudh Rent Act was amended by Act IV of 1921 which came into force on the 11th of February, 1922. Therefore, the Act of 1886 applied and he could not be said to have left an estate of inheritance and Muliman, his widow, was merely a non-occupancy tenant. She was liable to be ejected from the holding and, therefore, "when the zamindar executed a patta in her favour in the year 1922 for ten years she became a tenant in her own right under the patta." The learned Judge has pointed out that she had no right to remain in possession of the holding as an heir when the patta was granted to her. The execution of the patta in her favour was entirely a new contract between the zamindar and Muliman and Muliman acquired title to hold the tenancy in her own right under the patta. She, therefore, became a hereditary tenant when the U.P. Tenancy Act came into force in 1939 and succession to her tenancy would be governed not by Section 36 of the U.P. Tenancy Act but by Section 37 of the Act. 13. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on a decision of this Court in Mst. Jaini and Ors. v. Ram Prasad 1952 A.W.R. (H.C.) 373 In that case the last male tenant had died in 1923 after the U.P. Amendment Act No. IV of 1921 had come into force. Under the Oudh Ram Act of 1886 after the death of a male tenant his widow was entitled to remain in possession of the holding only for the unexpired period of seven years and was not entitled to a renewal of the tenancy. The amending Act of 1921" however, provided that by remaining in possession for three more years she would become a statutory tenant. In the case referred to above there was no fresh lease or contract between the widow and the landlord. The widow had merely continued in possession of the tenancy and had acquired the rights of a statutory tenant. That case is, therefore clearly distinguishable. 14. The result, therefore, is that the appeal has no force and is dismissed with costs.