This is the plaintiffs appeal against an appellate decree and decision of the learned Addl. Commissioner, Jaipur dated 13.11.56 dismissing the plaintiffs suit for recovery of possession of the land in dispute which was decreed by the trial court. The plaintiffs case before the trial Court was that they are the landlords of the land covered by Khasra numbers 531, 538 and 539 and had been either cultivating it themselves or getting it cultivated as and when suited them by giving a temporary lease to persons who offered themselves to cultivate this land. It was alleged that in Svt. 2011 Girwar, Ganesh, Chotka and Manna on behalf of all the co-sharers in this holding got this land cultivated for one year by the defendant respondents with the stipulation that after the crops were harvested, these fields would be made over by the defendants to the remaining four co-sharers for either cultivating it themselves or in any other manner they liked. It was urged that the defendants instead of abiding by the aforesaid terms of lease refused to give this land back to the plaintiff appellants number 5,6,7 and 9. It was prayed that the defendant be ejected and possession be made over to the plaintiffs. The defendants denied the plaintiffs claim and asserted that they had been cultivating the land in their own rights since long, that it was not leased to them for a year as urged by the plaintiffs and that by virtue of their long standing possession as tenants they were not liable to be dis-possessed. The trial court struck necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the plantiffs suit. In appeal by the defendants the learned Addl. Commissioner took different view in the matter and held that the defendants were not trespassers and therefore not liable to ejectment. The suit was accordingly dismissed. The plaintiffs have now come in appeal before us. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record of the case. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that when both the courts below concurrently held that the defendant had acquired this land in dispute from the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 in Smt. year 2011 on one years lease and had not been cultivating the land since long time, the learned Addl. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that when both the courts below concurrently held that the defendant had acquired this land in dispute from the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 in Smt. year 2011 on one years lease and had not been cultivating the land since long time, the learned Addl. Commissioner committed a substantial error and acted contrary to the weight of evidence on record and making an entry in the case that after the termination of the lease, the defendant continued to "hold over" the land which fact was neither alleged by them in their written statement nor made the subject matter of an enquiry by the trial court. It was also urged that the word "holding over" means that the relationship of landlord and tenant continued with the assent of both the parties and the important test by which the relationship might be continued in the present case, and that there is no evidence on the point that the plaintiffs ever accepted the rent or assented to the continuance of the tenancy in any manner and that such a tenant is no better than a trespasser. A.I.R. 1949 Nag. 282 and A.I.R. 1943 Oudh 392 were cited as authorities on this point and also 1955 Patna, 158. 4. We have ourselves gone through the evidence of the parties. There is nothing in the evidence of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff appellants that after the expiry of the period of lease the defendants were allowed to remain in possession of the land as a tenant holding over by the plaintiffs. The defendants also in their examination did not say that they continued to remain in possession of the land after the expiry of the lease with the consent of the plaintiffs or that they paid any rent to him. This being so we accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Addl. Commissioner was not justified in holding that the defendants continued to hold over the land and that they were not trespassers. The learned counsel for the opposite party pointed out however that from the entries made in the Khasra Girdawari, of Svt. year 2007 to 2010 he had been able to prove that his clients were in cultivatory possession of the land in those years. We have looked into these entries. In Svt. The learned counsel for the opposite party pointed out however that from the entries made in the Khasra Girdawari, of Svt. year 2007 to 2010 he had been able to prove that his clients were in cultivatory possession of the land in those years. We have looked into these entries. In Svt. 2003 this land was entirely shown in the cultivation of the plaintiffs. The same entry was repeated in Smt. years 2004, 2005 and 2006. In Smt. 2007 the name of one of the defendants Sarwan was shown as a cultivator of one jodi. In Smt. 2008 the same entry was repeated and in Smt. 2009 the name of none of the defendants was shown as cultivator in possession of the land. In svt. 2010 the name of Shukla was entered as a cultivator of one jodi. In Svt. 2011 the name of all the defendants were shown as tenants in possession when the whole of that holding as alleged by the plaintiffs was let out to the defendants on leases for a year. These clearly belie the contention of the defendants that they had been cultivating the whole of this land since long prior to Smt. 2011 Besides the probative value of these two entries which stand in favour of the defendants is not conclusive in the absence of any further corroborative evidence to prove the factum of tenancy in favour of the respondent defendant. It is significant to observe that it is a rule of law that a court is not competent to act illegally if it invents a new case for a party which it never pleaded in its written statement. In 1925 Oudh 142 it was held that subordinate courts should confine themselves to the pleadings of the parties and not usurp the functions of the Kazi of Id who sat under a tree and dispensed natural justice without being hampered by any pleadings or evidence. In A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 753, it was emphatically laid down as an indispensable rule of law and procedure that a court cannot on failure of the defendant to prove his case, make out a new case, for him which is not only made in the written statement but which is wholly inconsistent with the title set up by the defendant, The Revenue Board also in R. R. D. 195 page 115 followed the above ruling. In R. R. D. 1956, page 96 the same view was reiterated. The learned Addl. Commissioner therefore had no authority in law to act contrary to the established procedure, and the decision arrived at by him to the effect that the defendant continued to hold over and therefore not liable to ejectment as a trespasser is not maintainable. The conclusion to which we arrive therefore is that the land was cultivated for the first time in Svt. 2010) and that thereafter the defendants unlawfully retained possession of the same. They are therefore clearly trespassers and the trial court rightly decreed the suit against them. We accept the appeal and set aside the decree given by the learned Addl. Commissioner and confirm the decree given by the trial court.