ORDER R.S. Shukla, Member Applicant Govardhanlal admittedly held Khasra Nos. 262/1 and 262/2 (Incorrectly mentioned as Nos. 266/1 and 266/2 in the Commissioner's order) in malik-makbuza rights, which he gave away in occupancy rights to one Ram Narain by a registered deed executed on 25-11-1952. Subsequently, in 1956 Ram Narain sold away these lands to one Rewti Bai, wife of Ramlal. Rewtibai died during the course of present proceedings and Ramlal is now the substituted non-applicant. The present case started on the application of applicant Govardhanlal under section 176 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1954 (II of 1955) praying that the sale of the disputed lands to Rewtibai be set aside as Ram Narain was an occupancy tenant within the meaning of section 169(1) of the Code and could not effect the aforesaid sale. The S.D.O. and the Addl. Collector accepted the claim of the applicant and set aside the sale, but the learned Commissioner in second appeal reversed the orders of the lower Courts on the ground that Ram Narain, the seller, could not be deemed to be an occupancy tenant within the meaning of section 169(1) ibid. According to the learned Commissioner the land was held by Ram Narain as a tenant of a malik-makbuza viz., Govardhanlal and, as such, on the date of the sale, Ram Narain was only a sub-tenant in the eyes of law. For this proposition he relied on the provisions of section 37(2) of the C.P. Tenancy Act, 1920 which reads as follows:- Any person who holds, as a tenant, land from a malik-makbuza or from the holder of a survey number, and who is not an absolute occupancy tenant or was not recorded in the Settlement Records of the last Settlement made before this Act came into force as an occupancy tenant shall be deemed to be a sub-tenant of such land. The contention of the applicant malik-makbuza is that by virtue of the deed dated 25-11-52, occupancy rights had been given to Ram Narain and the latter must be deemed to have been recognised as an occupancy tenant within the meaning of section 91 of the Code. The contention of the applicant malik-makbuza is that by virtue of the deed dated 25-11-52, occupancy rights had been given to Ram Narain and the latter must be deemed to have been recognised as an occupancy tenant within the meaning of section 91 of the Code. It was contended that it is not necessary that Ram Narain should have been declared an 'occupancy tenant' under section 41 of the C.P. Tenancy Act or section 169(2) of the Code to enable Govardhan (applicant) to seek ejectment of the purchaser under section 176, ibid. The learned counsel for the applicant relied on my decision in Devi Pd. v. Mahesh Pd. 1959 MPLJ 722 , which was upheld by the High Court of M.P. in Debiprasad v. Board of Revenue, MP 1960 MPLJ 990 . He particularly laid stress on the observations made by the High Court in regard to the word 'declared' occurring in section 169(1). This is what the High Court observed in that case:- The word 'declared' which is a word of wide connotation also means 'authoritatively recognised'. In our opinion, the expression 'declared an occupancy tenant of a malik-makbuza' occurring in section 169(1) of the Land Revenue Code, 1954, would include a person who was authoritatively recognised an occupancy tenant of a person who held plots of land separately assessed to Land Revenue. The learned counsel for the applicant also invited my attention to the Khasra entries for the years 1954-55 and 1955-56 in which Ram Narain has been described as maurusi by the Patwari and argued that it showed that Ram Narain had been recognised much prior to applicant's application made in 1957 under section 176 as an occupancy tenant, and in view of the observations of the High Court, cited above, it must be held that the provisions of section 176 of the Code are attracted in this case. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant. It can hardly be denied that Ram Narain was a sub-tenant in the eyes of law on the date he sold the land to Rewti Bai, because it has not been shown either that he was an absolute occupancy tenant or was recorded in Settlement records of the last Settlement as an occupancy tenant [section 37(2), C.P. Tenancy Act] as such, the learned Commissioner took the correct view that the nature of rights created in favour of Ram Narain by the registered deed dated 25-11-52 was nothing else but a sub-tenancy. Section 37(2) of the C.P. Tenancy Act, as quoted above, clearly indicates that a Malik-Makbuza was not given the right to create an 'occupancy-tenant' himself. It would, therefore, be irrelevant to say that in the recital of the deed dated 25-11-52, Govardhanlal, the Malik-Makbuza, had described Ram Narain's rights as occupancy rights. Unless there is anything to hold the contrary, occupancy right could not be created, in violation of the then law, by a mere deed of the kind referred to above. Similarly Patwari's entering Ram Narain as occupancy tenant in the Khasra for the years 1955 and 1956 cannot amount to an authoritative recognition of Ram Narain as occupancy tenant. A recognition to be authoritative must have its support in law or it must be given by a competent authority who possesses, under the law, the right to accord such recognition. Mutual recognition by the parties of a certain status, which is not sanctioned by law, cannot be treated as an authoritative recognition within the meaning of the observations of the High Court referred to above. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that Ram Narain was not an occupancy tenant within the meaning of section 169(1) on the date he transferred the lands to Rewtibai and applicant Govardhanlal's claim to invoke the provisions of section 176, Land Revenue Code cannot be sustained. In the above view the revision petition must fail and is dismissed accordingly. Petition dismissed