This revision has been filed under sec. 187 of the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ajmer, confirming the order of the Tehsildar, Ajmer, in a case under sec. 85 of the Act. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. The chief contention raised before us on behalf of the applicants is that no relationship of a land-holder and a tenant existed between the parties and hence the lower courts had no jurisdiction to grant a decree in favour of the opposite party under sec. 85 of the Act. As is apparent from the language of sec 85 itself, there must exist such a relationship between the parties as it is only the land holder who can apply to the Tehsildar for the recovery of arrears of rent where the tenant fails to pay the same or without sufficient cause fulls to cultivate the holding. If the relation-ship between the parties is not that of a landholder or a tenant then evidently no action under sec. 85 of the Act can be taken. We have, therefore to see whether the lower courts were justified in holding that such a relationship did exist between the parties or not. 3. A tenancy may arise either by an act of the parties or by operation of law. The opposite party in the present case, came before the Tehsildar with the allegation that he was the land-holder of the land in dispute and was, therefore, entitled to collect the rent and that the defendants are the tenants liable to pay rent by Banta. It is significant to note that it was nowhere alleged in the application that the applicants were holding land as tenants under the opposite party. The trial court relying upon Ex. P. 1—a patta granted to the opposite party on 10 9 54 by the management of the Dargah Miran Sahib Ajmer and Ex. P. 2—a copy of the mutation order holding the opposite party as a biswedar of the land in dispute held that the opposite party should be deemed to be the land-holder and the applicants as the tenants under him. A certified copy of the patta granted to the opposite party (Ex. P. 1) exists on record. P. 2—a copy of the mutation order holding the opposite party as a biswedar of the land in dispute held that the opposite party should be deemed to be the land-holder and the applicants as the tenants under him. A certified copy of the patta granted to the opposite party (Ex. P. 1) exists on record. It is gathered from this document that the opposite party applied for grant of a patta in respect of the land in dispute to the management of the Dargah Miran Sharif and the same was granted on the following terms:— (1) The opposite party would put manure in the entire land and would construct a well within two years Cultivation shall be done during every harvest (2) The opposite party would not let the lard remain fallow and would take away the produce only after the payment of hasil and Banta. (3) The opposite party would pay premium of Rs. 250/— for the patta. (4) If the land was not vacated, the patta shall stand cancelled. (5) The rent for rabi harvest shall be 1/4 of the produce and for kharif harvest a Bigori of Rs. 2/8/- per bigha. (6) The opposite party would be a biswedar and as such may either cultivate the land himself or have it cultivated through someone. 4. The applicants have contended before us that when this patta was granted to the opposite party they were in possession of the land in dispute as tenants of the Dargah and that they had been in possession since a number of years prior the grant of the patta. It is a fact that after obtaining the patta, the opposite par brought a suit in a civil court for restraining the applicants and others fro interfering with his possession. It is found by the civil court that the opposite party was never in possession of the land in pursuance of the patta and hence the suit brought by the opposite party was dismissed. An appeal was preferred against that decision before the District Judge, Ajmer, but met with no success. We may also refer to the statement of Pitha, the opposite party himself. It was recorded by the Tehsildar on 27.4.56. In his examination in chief, Pitha stated th?t, after obtaining the patta, he cultivated the land for one year. An appeal was preferred against that decision before the District Judge, Ajmer, but met with no success. We may also refer to the statement of Pitha, the opposite party himself. It was recorded by the Tehsildar on 27.4.56. In his examination in chief, Pitha stated th?t, after obtaining the patta, he cultivated the land for one year. In cross-examination he, however, admitted that he got no document executed in his favour by the applicants, that Bhura forcibly and wrongfully cultivated the land and refused to vacate it even when requested by him to do so. It was also admitted that no rents were ever paid to him by the applicants. In other words, it is perfectly clear from the statement that no contract of tenancy was ever entered into between the parties on the basis of which an action for arrears can be founded. The only other source through which the opposite party can claim the right to receive rent would be if the right to receive rents existing in favour of the Dargah management had been transferred in favour of the opposite party. At one stage of the argument such a proposition was led before us on behalf of the opposite party. But a perusal of the patta granted to the opposite party is more than enough to negative this contention. The Dargah management did not transfer their rights in land to the opposite party but only admitted him as a biswedar tenant on certain terms and conditions. In other words, the status that was granted to him was that of a tenant. This view would be in perfect harmony with the provisions contained in sec. 91 of the Act. In order to hold him as a land-holders vis the applicants there should exist either a contract between the parties or any law that may operate to create such a contract in favour of the opposite party. Both these essential ingredients are conspicuous, by their absence. The opposite party, Pitha as observed above, had himself stated that there was no privy of contract between him and the applicant who acquired wrongful possession over the land. As far as operation of law, the Dargah management admitted the opposite party as a tenant who could not acquire possession over the land as a result of resistance from a person who claimed himself to be a pre existing tenant. As far as operation of law, the Dargah management admitted the opposite party as a tenant who could not acquire possession over the land as a result of resistance from a person who claimed himself to be a pre existing tenant. Thus evidently the opposite party cannot claim to be a land-holder as against the applicants His status is nothing but that of a tenant and as against the applicants, he cannot be held to be a landholder. His proper remedy would be to have the applicants ejected first if the law allows him to do so and it is only after that that he can admit somebody as a subtenant The mutation proceedings did not amount to anything beyond evidencing the fact that the Dargah management admitted the opposite party as a tenant of the land in dispute. It does not amount to any determination of the rights or liabilities of the opposite party as against the applicants. Thus the result is that the absence of the relationship of a landlord and a tenant between the parties strikes at the very root of jurisdiction for in its absence, no order under sec. 85 of the Act can be passed by the Tehsildar or the Sub-Dvisional Officer. For these reasons, we hold that the lower courts have exercised a jurisdiction which did not vest in them by law. The revision is, therefore, allowed, decisions of the lower courts are set aside and it is directed that the application presented by the opposite party before the Tehsildar under sec. 85 of the Act shall stand rejected. The parties will bear their costs throughout.