ORDER-It is common ground between the parties that applicant Shaligram was a protected lessee of the field survey Nos. 35/1 and 27/4 of mauza Nehuri Bk. in the year 1956-57 by virtue of a lease granted by the non-applicant-landlord Kashiram. It is further common ground between the parties that on 24-3-1956 Shaligram executed a registered surrender deed in favour of Kashiram in respect of these lands. The surrender deed recites that it was to come into operation at the end of the agricultural year 1956-57. Relying on this surrender deed Kashiram filed a civil suit for possession and mesn profits. The civil Court referred the issues to the Tahsildar for decision. The first was whether the surrender deed was valid and nominal. The-second was whether Shaligram wall a protected lessee of the fields, in the year 1957.58. The learned Tenancy Naib-Tahsildar found both these issues in favour of Shaligram. On appeal the learned Sub-Divisional Officer found both these issues in favour of tile landlord Kashiram. Shaligram, the tenant, therefore filed the present revision application against the findings of the learned Sub—Divisional Officer. On the applicants behalf Shri Kherdekar challenged the validity of the surrender deed on the ground that it was premature and nominal and not intended to be acted upon. He contended that the surrender deed had been executed at a time when lease rights over the fields had not commenced. He further contended that a proper surrender could only be executed during the currency of the lease and not prior to its commencement. 2. On 24-3-1956 when the surrender deed was executed it was governed by section 6 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act (hereinafter referred to as the Berar Leases Act) as it stood before its amendment by Ordinance No. IV of 1957 on 21-9-1957. By virtue of section 6 all that a valid surrender required was a. written document executed by the tenant duly registered and delivered to the landlord not less than 30 days before the commencement of the agricultural year. The applicant had contended that he got the lease of the fields on the very day on which he had executed the surrender deed. The non-applicant, on the other hand, contended that the applicant had executed a kabuliyat in respect of these fields on 16-3-1956. The applicant had contended that he got the lease of the fields on the very day on which he had executed the surrender deed. The non-applicant, on the other hand, contended that the applicant had executed a kabuliyat in respect of these fields on 16-3-1956. Whichever version is accepted, the fact remains that Shaligram was to be a lelJS66 of these fields for the year 1956-57 by virtue of a contract which the parties had made either on 24-3-1956 or on 16-3-1956. The intention of the parties in having this surrender deed appears to have been that Shaligram should not set the rights of a protected lessee by virtue of section 3 of the Act. To ensure this Kashiram appears to have obtained the surrender deed from Shaligram before letting him into the possession of the fields with effect from 1-4-1956. The surrender deed does not become invalid merely because it was executed before the lease commenced. It came to be executed prior to the commencement of the lease merely because the agreement of lease had taken place before the commencement of the Agricultural year 1956-57. 3. In the circumstances it does not appear that the surrender deed was merely nominal. The parties appear to have intended to act upon it, and by obtaining it Kashiram clearly intended that Shaligram should not claim any right as a protected lessee over the fields in the year 1957-58 In the circumstances, 1do not find any reason to hold that the surrender deed is in any way invalid. There is nothing in section 6 to require that a surrender deed must be executed during the currency of a lease. 4. Shri Kherdekars next contention was that the surrender deed was designed to defeat Shaligrams right as a protected lessee under section 3 of the Berar Leases Act. The document does not become fraudulent or void or voidable merely if the person in whose favour it is executed obtains it to safeguard his right Kashiram wanted to give the field for one year to Shaligram. To ensure this he obtained the surrender. Shaligram was not entitled to more than a years cultivation under the lease which he obtained for the year 1956 57. By exeeuting the surrender deed be waived any claim for becoming a protected lessee under section 3. To ensure this he obtained the surrender. Shaligram was not entitled to more than a years cultivation under the lease which he obtained for the year 1956 57. By exeeuting the surrender deed be waived any claim for becoming a protected lessee under section 3. I, therefore, confirm the finding of the learned Deputy Collector that the surrender deed dated 24-3-1956 was valid. 5. The second issue referred to the Tahsildar by the civil Court was whether Shaligram was a protected lessee in the year 1957-58. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer has found on the strength of the crop statement for 1957 -58 that Kashiram had performed summer operations and done the sowing of the fields in 1957-58 and that Shaligram had reaped the crop. This appears probable when Kashiram had need to enforce his right under the surrender deed for re-entry while applicant Shaligram wanted to claim the benefit as a protected lessee. The burden of proving that there was a lease in his favour for the year 1957-58 lay on Shaligram. He has failed to discharge the same on his sob uncorroborated testimony. The decision of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer appears therefore correct. 6. The application for revision is dismissed. Application dismissed.