JUDGMENT B. N. Nigam, J. - The facts of this case are stated in the order of the learned District Judge. It appears that Prayag Narain was an intermediary in village Jainpur, pergana Khairabad, tahsil and district Sitapur. Smt. Ram Piari was holding some land from the intermediary at a rent of Rs. 341- per annum. She had been holding the land from a period subsequent to 1355 Fasli. She made an application for conferment of bhumidhari rights on her and then acting under the provisions of Sec. 7 (1) (b) of the U.P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, U.P. Act X of 1949, the rent payable by her was determined at hereditary rates applicable at the said date i. e. at Rs. 82|3/-, this amount being higher than the rent agreed upon between her and Prayag Narain, the intermediary. She thereupon made the necessary deposits and on 10th November, 1951 she was declared a bhumidhar of the lands in question. Subsequent to this date she paid the rent to the intermediary at the rate of Rs. 41|1|6 for one Fasli year and also deposited rent in the tahsil at the same rate for the following year, that is, the year after the zamindari had vested in the State Government. 2. Subsequently when the question of determination of the compensation pay-able to the intermediary came up, it was urged on behalf of the State that compensation should be paid on the basis that the rent payable by Smt. Ram Piari was Rs. 34/-. The intermediary urged that he was entitled to compensation on the basis that the rent payable was Rs. 82|3/-. The Compensation Officer, Sitapur, decided against the intermediary. Thereupon an appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge, Sitapur. The appeal was numbered as Appeal no. 3 of 1954. The learned District Judge accepted the appeal and directed that compensation be calculated treating the rent payable by Ram Piari to be Rs. 82|3/-. Similar questions arose in the two connected appeals from which Second Appeals Nos. 442 and 443 of 1954 arise. In both these appeals also the learned District Judge decided the matter against the State Government. In both those appeals the same amounts was involved. Against that judgment the State Government filed a second appeal. 82|3/-. Similar questions arose in the two connected appeals from which Second Appeals Nos. 442 and 443 of 1954 arise. In both these appeals also the learned District Judge decided the matter against the State Government. In both those appeals the same amounts was involved. Against that judgment the State Government filed a second appeal. This came up before a learned single judge of this Court and by an order dated 21st April, 1955 in view of the importance of the question the matter has been refer-red to a Division Bench, and it is thus that it is before us. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The learned District Judge has at one place expressed the view that Smt. Ram Piari had been admitted to tenancy prior to 1355 Fasli. He stated in his judgment :- "It appears that the tenant was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 34/- to the appellant previous to 1355 Fasli and this fact also indicates that the appellant is in no circumstance entitled to get eight times of Rs. 82|3/-." 5. This was one of the arguments urged be-fore him. The learned District Judge at another place stated: "To all intents and purposes the tenant will be deemed to have been admitted into tenancy after 1355 Fasli." 6. We have not been able to find any of these Khetaunis on the record. The learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh conceded that there are no such Khetaunis on the record. Before us the admitted case is that Smt. Ram Piari Was admitted to tenancy after 1355F. and in fact had that not been so the provisions of Sec. 4 (1) (b) of the U. P. Act X of 1949 would not have been applicable and there would have been no determination of the rent payable by her prior to grant of bhumidhari rights to her. We will, there-fore, proceed on the basis that Smt. Ram Piari was not a tenant prior to 1355F. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the state has referred us to the provisions of Secs. 92 to 98 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. We will, there-fore, proceed on the basis that Smt. Ram Piari was not a tenant prior to 1355F. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the state has referred us to the provisions of Secs. 92 to 98 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. He has urged that under Sec. 93 the rate of rent payable by a tenant is to be presumed to be the rent previously payable by him until it is varied in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 98 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. The contention of the learned counsel is that as it is the agreed case that Rs. 341- was the rent payable by Smt. Ram Piari and there is no assertion that there has been any enhancement of that rent, the rent payable by Smt. Ram Piari must be taken to be Rs. 34/- only. In this connection the learned counsel also suggested that this rent payable will continue to be Rs. 34- only notwithstanding any determination under Sec. 4 (1) (b) of U. P. Act X of 1949. The contention is based on the language of Sec. 4 (1) which lays down that the determination of the rent will be for the purposes of "this" Act and the amount of annual rent payable for any land shall be "deemed to be" the rent determined. The contention of the learned counsel, as we understand it, is that every determination of rent under Sec. 4 (1) (b) of U. P. Act X of 1949 is not to affect the rent payable or to be deemed to be payable under the provisions of U. P. Tenancy Act. This view is clearly untenable in view of Sec. 7 of U. P. Act X of 1949. 8. The amount of gross assets of the mahal have to be calculated under Sec. 39 of U. P. Act I of 1951 for purposes of calculation of the compensation payable to the intermediaries Sec. 39 (1) (a) reads:- "Gross assets as respects a mahal shall be the aggregate gross income of the land or estate comprised in the mahal and such income shall comprise- (a) rents including cases and local rate payable by or on behalf of the tenants, ......... (i) in cash, and............" 9. (i) in cash, and............" 9. The contention of the learned counsel is that this section refers to rents payable and as Sec. 92 to 98 of the U. P. Tenancy Act deal with the rent payable by the tenant the reference under Sec. 39 (1) (a) must be deemed to be rent payable under the provisions of the U. P. Tenancy Act. We are unable to see any force in this contention. The argument of the learned counsel completely disregards the provisions of Sec. 7 (1) (b) of U. P. Act X of 1949. That sub-section states:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, the applicant, ...... shall in respect of every instalment of rent falling due after the date aforesaid, be liable to pay on account of such instalment the amount which shall be equal to one-half of the amount payable, as the case may be, by the applicant and the balance shall be deemed, on the date on which the instalment falls due, to have been deposited by him or them with the State Government." 10. This sub-section clearly statutorily substitutes a new contract for the agreement between the parties as to the rent payable. The learned counsel appearing for the State has urged that Sec. 7 relates only to privileges to be conferred on the tenant on payment of certain amount prescribed. We are unable to see any force in that contention either. If the privileges are acquired along with certain onerous conditions the tenant has to take the whole and not only the privileges discarding the onerous conditions. In the particular case the tenant would not secure the privilege of becoming a bhumidhar except by paying an enhanced amount as rent and Smt. Ram Piari does not appear to have had any hesitation in the matter. She opted to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 82|3|- to acquire the privileges she wanted. In the circumstances under clause (b) of Sec. 7 (1) we are of opinion that by effect of law a new contract was substituted for the agreement between the parties and on 10th November, 1951, the date of the grant of the Bhumidhari Sanad, the rent payable by her became Rs. 82|3|- instead of Rs. 34|- which had been previously agreed to between her and the opposite party intermediary. 11. No other point was pressed before us. 12. 82|3|- instead of Rs. 34|- which had been previously agreed to between her and the opposite party intermediary. 11. No other point was pressed before us. 12. We are accordingly of opinion that under Sec. 39(1) (a) of U. P. Act I of 1951 the rent payable by Smt. Ram Piari must be taken to be Rs. 82|3|-. There is thus no force in these appeals and they are dismissed with costs.