JUDGMENT : Das, J. - Defendant No. 1 filed this appeal against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below decreeing the Plaintiff's suit. 2. The Plaintiff's case was that about 30 years back, the disputed house was taken by the deceased, Guru Prasad on a monthly rental of Rs. 7/-. where he was holding a grocery shop. In about the year 1946, the Plaintiff effected certain extensions to the said house. In consideration of the improvements, Guru Prasad agreed to pay an enhanced rental of Rs. 60/- per month. According to the Plaintiff, he paid the above rate of rent for some months and then defaulted. The Plaintiff therefore, gave a pleaders notice to the Defendants in June, 1950, for vacating the house and for payment of the arrear dues amounting to Rs. 1, 500/-. The Defendant did not listen to it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for ejectment and for realisation of arrears of rental of Rs. 1, 500/-. 3. The defence was that it was not a case of monthly tenancy as alleged by the Plaintiff, but the two plots, 1531 and 1532, measuring about 15 decimals were let out to the deceased, Guru Prasad on an annual rental of Rs. 7/- only. According to the Defendant, it is not the Plaintiff but Guru Prasad constructed the House and possessed the land as Sub-tenant under him. In short, his case, was that the suit in ejectment was not maintainable. The trial Judge came to the conclusion that there was no evidence in proof of the original contract from either side, but there was abundant evidence of the Defendants occupying the premises as monthly tenant and the Plaintiff repairing the house at times. He however, disbelieved the Plaintiff's case of any agreement to pay the rental at the enhanced rate and his putting up any extensions to the house. In the result, the trial Court decreed the Plaintiff's suit for ejectment and allowed arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 7/- per month. The Defendant, in appeal, covered the same grounds as before the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court negatived all his contentions and dismissed the appeal which gave rise to this second appeal. 4. The sole contention raised by Mr. 7/- per month. The Defendant, in appeal, covered the same grounds as before the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court negatived all his contentions and dismissed the appeal which gave rise to this second appeal. 4. The sole contention raised by Mr. H. Mohapatra, learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellant, was that the Defendant had acquired occupancy right in the disputed home-stead under the provisions of the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act (Orissa Act IV of 1950). For this purpose, he relied upon Clause (f) of Section 7 of the foregoing Act. Section 7, as far as is relevant for the present purposes, reads as follows: 7. Not withstanding anything contained in the tenancy laws of the merged States as contained in force by virtue of Article 4 of the States Merger (Governor's Provinces) Order, 19\19. X X X X (f) a "Sukhbashi" shall be entitled to the right of an occupancy tenant over his homestead, notwithstanding any law or custom to the contrary: Explanation: - A "Sukhbasi" means any person holding only homestead whether or not recorded in the settlement paper as "Ghar", "Bari" or "Gharbari" or a person who is granted land by the Thekadar or by a competent revenue officer for the purpose of using it as homestead; X X X It is apparent from Clause (f) of Section 7 that a "Sukh bashi" would be entitled to acquire occupancy right in his homestead notwithstanding any law or custom to the contrary. The definition of the expression "Sukhbasi" makes it clear that he must be holding the homestead, whether he is recorded in the settlement or not. In the instant case, the trial Judge had discussed the question at great length and came to the conclusion that there was no evidence whatsoever to show that Guru Prasad got a settlement of the plot Nos. 1531 and 1532 from the Plaintiff's ancestors. According to him, there was evidence from the Plaintiff's side that Guru Prasad was inducted as a Lessee of the suit-holding on condition of paying a certain monthly rent. Accordingly, Guru Prasad must be said to have had no interest in the land itself but he was merely to occupy the house on the land as a monthly tenant thereof. Mr. G.K. Misra, learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents, contended that it would be indeed dangerous to layout such a proposition. Accordingly, Guru Prasad must be said to have had no interest in the land itself but he was merely to occupy the house on the land as a monthly tenant thereof. Mr. G.K. Misra, learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents, contended that it would be indeed dangerous to layout such a proposition. According to him, the Defendant was not a tenant within the meaning of Clause (f) of Section 7 and he was not holding the homestead as "Sukhbasi". He was residing there merely as a tenant according to the findings of both the Courts below which have not been challenged by Mr. Mohapatra in this Court. Accordingly, in my opinion, Clause (f) of Section 7 of the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, has no application to the present case. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal which is bound to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, but there would be no order for costs of this Court. 5. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed