This second appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff whose suit for ejectment - against the defendants in respect of the land in dispute was dismissed by the trial court on 17.5.58, the first appellate court confirming the same in appeal on 31.1.59. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. The learned Additional Commissioner has based his decision on the question of limitation only and has rejected the appeal without going into the merits of the case. The appellant claims to be the tenant of the land in dispute under the respondents who are the land-holders (Biswedars). The suit was instituted in the trial court on 7.6.57 wherein wrongful dispossession was alleged to have taken place on 17th October, 1956. The learned Additional Commissioner held that the suit was governed by Sec. 186 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which provides a limitation of 3 months commencing from date of dispossession, that sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act had no application to the case and as such the suit was beyond limitation. 3. Thus the only point that is involved for determination at this stage in this appeal is as to whether a suit by tenant for ejectment against a land-holder can be brought under sec. 183 or not. Obviously as the question is of a far-reaching significance, we would discuss it at some length. 4. Before examining the subject in a wider context, we may refer to the general features of both the sections. Sec. 183 relates to ejectment of trespassers. It is provided therein that a trespasser, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the provisions of this Act, be liable to ejectment on the suit of the person or persons entitled to admit him as a tenant if he has taken or retained possession of any land without lawful authority. A trespasser who has prevented any other person from occupying land duly let out to such person, shall also be liable to ejectment on the suit of such person under this section. A trespasser who has prevented any other person from occupying land duly let out to such person, shall also be liable to ejectment on the suit of such person under this section. Sec. 186 lays down remedies for wrongful ejectment It is provided therein that any tenant who has been ejected from or dispossessed of his holding or any part thereof before the commencement of this Act otherwise than by process of law or after such commencement in contravention with the provisions of this Act then within three months be may apply to the Assistant Collector for his reinstatement in such holding or part as the case may be. It is further provided in this section that the Assistant Collector on being satisfied after such summary enquiry as he may consider necessary that the applicant was ejected or dispossessed may order that the applicant be reinstated in such holding or part and that any other person in possession of it be ejected therefrom. Thus both these sections are distinctly different. Sec. 183 relates to ejectment of trespassers and the machinery prescribed for the purpose is through such institution of suit which has to be tried in the prescribed manner. Sec. 186 can be set in motion through an application and it is to be decided after such summary enquiry as an Asstt. Collector may consi-deY necessary. It is important to bear this distinction in mind because Secs. 180 and 183 of the U. P. Tenancy Act have been interpreted differently because of some similar features in both of those sections. 5. The learned counsel for the. respondent has argued that the remedy laid down in sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act would not be available to a tenant against a landholder for the following reasons:— (a) Sec. 183(a) authorises a person to admit the defendant as tenant and as the term "tenant" does no include a "sub-tenant" this remedy should not be available to a tenant. (b) A land-holder cannot be admitted as a sub-tenant by the tenant and as such the remedy of sec. 183 cannot be available to a tenant. (c) Sec. 186 prescribes a remedy for tenants ejected by land-holders and as such sec. 183 should be interpreted so as to provide a remedy for tenants against all but land-holders. 6. (b) A land-holder cannot be admitted as a sub-tenant by the tenant and as such the remedy of sec. 183 cannot be available to a tenant. (c) Sec. 186 prescribes a remedy for tenants ejected by land-holders and as such sec. 183 should be interpreted so as to provide a remedy for tenants against all but land-holders. 6. It has been replied on behalf of the appellant that the word tenant used in sec. 183(a) is wide enough to include a sub-tenant, that there can be no objection to a tenant admitting his land-holder as a sub-tenant and that the remedy of sec. 186 is not confined only against land-holders as it can be sought against any trespassers. 7. We would examine all these questions separately and would first consider the question of "tenant" including sub-tenant or otherwise. Sec. 5(43) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act defines "tenant" as meaning a person by whom rent is or would be payable but for a contract express or implied and includes a sub tenant unless a contrary intention appears. On behalf of the respondents A.I.R. 1947 Oudh 104 was cited to show that sec. 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act which is alleged to be corresponding to sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was held to contemplate only suits by landlords against persons who take or retain possession of agricultural land without any title and that the. word "tenant" as used in that section did not include a sub-tenant. This decision was based on an examination of the provisions of secs. 180 and 183 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and it was observed that those other provisions were potent enough to indicate a contrary intention, i.e., to show that sub-tenant was not to be included in the word tenant used in sec. 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. This decision was examined by a full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Wali Mohmad Vs. Taki reported in A.I.R. 1958 Alld. 403. 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. This decision was examined by a full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Wali Mohmad Vs. Taki reported in A.I.R. 1958 Alld. 403. Their Lordships were pleased to observe that "the learned Judges who decided the case referred to above in A. I. R. 1947 Oudh 104 have relied, in attributing a contrary intention referred to, in the definition of the word "tenant" or other provisions of the Act have also taken some hypothetical cases to illustrate the meaning of the word "tenant" in the context in which it has been used in sec. 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. With great respect to the learned Judges who decided that case we find ourselves unable to agree with the reasons given in the judgment for coming to the conclusion that the word "tenant" does not include a sub-tenant, and we are of the opinion that the word "tenant does include a sub-tenant and there is nothing in the wording of Sec. 180 or in the context in which the word tenant has been used to indicate that the word tenant does not include a sub-tenant." We find ourselves in respectful agreement with this view. 8. As for the second contention it may be pointed out that there is nothing in the Tenancy Laws of the State to show that a tenant cannot admit his land-holder as a sub-tenant. A reference was made in this connection to sec. 63(iv) of the Act wherein it has been provided that the interest of a tenant shall be extinguished when has been deprived of possession and his right to recover possession is barred by limitation. Evidently this has no reference to a case where the tenant himself admits the land-holder as his sub-tenant for it cannot be said that he has been deprived of his possession. The word "deprivation" in the context would mean without the consent of the tenant and further there can be no question of his right to recover possession being barred by limitation. We may refer to a decision of the U. P. Revenue Board reported in 1941 R.D.—953. It was observed therein that there was nothing to prevent a tenant from subletting a portion of his holding to his land-holder. This is the position that would obtain under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act as well. We may refer to a decision of the U. P. Revenue Board reported in 1941 R.D.—953. It was observed therein that there was nothing to prevent a tenant from subletting a portion of his holding to his land-holder. This is the position that would obtain under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act as well. Thus this contention is also devoid of substance 9. This brings us to the last but not the least important point as to whether a land-bolder may be a trespasser or not Trespasser has been defined in Sec. 5(44) as a person who takes or retains possession of land without authority. A land-holder may be in constructive possession of the holding let out to a tenant but he has no authority to dis-possess or eject that tenant without recourse to law and if he does so he cannot be anything else but a trespasser. It was argued that sec. 186 provides remedies for wrongful ejectment and as such a tenant who has been wrongfully ejected should resort to sec. 186 only. The fallacious reasoning inherent in this argument stands decided by a decision of the Rajas-than High Court reported in 1954 RLW 259. Sec.186 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is to a very great extent reproduction of the provisions contained in sec 7 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance 1949 which was repealed by the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. In the High Court ruling referred to above, the question to be decided was as to whether the remedy affor-ded by sec. 7 was available to a tenant against land-holder or against trespasser also. Their Lordships were pleased to observe that "there is no reason to cut down the wide amplitude of sec. 7(1) affording protection to tenants, whether it be against ejectment by land-holders or at the instance of land-holders, or by third persons who are trespassers. Consequently the protection afforded by sec. 7 of the Ordinance is also available in case of dispossession of a person in occupation of the holding on or after the first day of April 1948as tenant as defined in the Ordinance when such dispossession is made by a person other than the land-holder, e.g., a trespasser". Thus it cannot be argued with any authority now that Sec. 186 would come in to force only when a tenant seeks his remedy against a Land-holder. Thus it cannot be argued with any authority now that Sec. 186 would come in to force only when a tenant seeks his remedy against a Land-holder. This remedy would be available against a trespasser as well. This would bring out all the more forcibly the necessity of putting a harmonious interpretation upon both the sections so as to avoid incompatible de-ductiops. Sec. 186 provides a speedy and summary remedy which a tenant can avail of through an application against a land-holder or a rank trespasser in case of his ejectment or disposses-sion. But that by itself would not mean that the remedy granted to him earlier by sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act would vanish. We have discussed earlier the reasons which have led us to hold that the remedy under sec. 183 would be applicable to a tenant against a land-holder also. The result is that the decision of the Addl. Commissioner is untenable and must be set aside as the suit is within limitation by reason of sec. 183 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act being applicable to it. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and remand the case back to it with the direction that the appeal filed before it should be heard and determined on merits in accordance with law.