JUDGMENT : Ahmad, C.J. - The substantial question that falls for consideration in this case is whether the Plaintiff who is the Appellant here is a raiyat as defined in Section 5 of the Orissa Tenancy Act 1913. It has been conceded before me on behalf of the Respondents that in case it is found that at the relevant time the Plaintiff was a raiyat of the lands in suit, the suit as framed has to be decreed and the appeal, allowed. But in case it is found that he was not a raiyat then the suit and the appeal both have to be dismissed. 2. The lands in suit covering an area of 4.92 acres fall in village Chandiagarh. Out of it, 2.15. acres appertain to plot No. 281 of Khata No. 266, .51 acre appertains to plot t Nos. 35 and 36 of khata No. 276, 1.52 acres appertain to plot No. 950 of khata No. 56, and 1.14 acres appertain to plot No. 951 of khata No. 56. This village Chandiagarh originally formed part of the Aul Estate which vested in the State of Orissa under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act with effect from 1-4-1954. The lands in suit were formerly the tenancy holding of two raiyats Krishna Chandra Sarangi and Bhagaban Mandal. It appears that in the year 1925-26 this village Chandiagarh was in possession of the Rani of Aul as tenure-holder and these two tenants had defaulted in payment of rent. Accordingly certain certificate proceedings were taken against those tenants and in due course their holdings were got auction sold. In that auction sale they were purchased by the Rani herself. The claim of the Plaintiff is that subsequently these lands were settled with him orally by delivery of possession and as such he remained in possession thereof till sometime May 1957 or 1958. In the meantime it is stated that there was a proceeding taken by Defendants 1 to 3 u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure against some third parties. These proceedings were ultimately decided on 19-12-1955 in favour of Defendants 1 to 3 and in view of the order passed in that proceeding they forcibly disposed the Plaintiff, sometime thereafter. Hence the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of these lands, which was instituted on 17-5-195S. In the plaint 5 persons have been impleaded as Defendants. Hence the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of these lands, which was instituted on 17-5-195S. In the plaint 5 persons have been impleaded as Defendants. Defendants 1 to 3 are the main contesting Defendants. The plea set up in defence on their behalf is that these lands were settled with them by the Raja of Aul sometime in the year 195 and as such they have been in possession thereof uptill now. They have strongly challenged the claim of the Plaintiff that he had ever been the settled raiyat of the village or the occupancy raiyat of the lands in suit. Accordingly it has been prayed on their behalf that the suit as constituted should be dismissed. So far as Defendants 4 and 5 are concerned, they are the Tahasildar and the Collector of the area wherein these lands in dispute fall. They have supported the case of Defendants 1 to 3 but have not very seriously taken any interest in the case. 3. Both the Courts below have concurrently found (1) that the Plaintiff is a settled raiyat of the village as defined in Section 23 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, and (2) that the Plaintiff had been in possession of the lands in suit till he was dispossessed therefrom in the year 1957 or 158 and had paid rent all along to the Aul Estate till the same was vested in the State of Orissa. They have however differed on the question whether the Plaintiff at the relevant time was the raiyat of the lands in suit or not. According to the trial Court the Plaintiff at the relevant time was the raiyat of the lands in suit or not. According to the trial Court the Plaintiff was a raiyat of the lands in suit during the time was in possession thereof and as such by virtue of Section 24 of the Orissa Tenancy Act acquired occupancy right therein. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. This last finding of the trial Court has been reversed by the lower appellate court. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. This last finding of the trial Court has been reversed by the lower appellate court. The conclusion come to by the lower appellate Court is that the Plaintiff during the time he was in possession of the lands in suit was only a bhag tenant and not a raiyat as defined in Section 5 of the Orissa Tenancy Act and therefore he never acquired any occupancy right as contemplated by Section 24 of the Orissa Tenancy Act. Accordingly the judgment of the trial Court has been reversed in appeal and the suit has been dismissed. Hence this Second Appeal by the Plaintiff. 4. The view taken by the lower appellate Court seems to have been very much influenced by the definition of the word 'tenant' as given in the Orissa Tenants Relief Act, 1955. Accordingly the judgment of the trial Court has been reversed in appeal and the suit has been dismissed. Hence this Second Appeal by the Plaintiff. 4. The view taken by the lower appellate Court seems to have been very much influenced by the definition of the word 'tenant' as given in the Orissa Tenants Relief Act, 1955. There in the word 'tenant' in Section 2 j) has been defined as follows: tenant, means a person who under the system generally known as Bhag, Sanja or Kata or such similar expression, or under any other system, law, contract, custom or usage cultivates the land of another person on payment of rent in cash or in kind or in both or on condition of delivering to that person (i) either a share of the produce or such land, or (ii) the estimated value of a portion of the crop raised on the land, or (iii) a fixed quantity of produce irrespective of the yield from the land, or (iv) produce or its estimated value partly in any one of the ways described above and partly in another; Exceptions-The following persons shall not be deemed to be tenants within the meaning of this definition: (1) a member of the landlord's family; (2) a servant or hired labourer, cultivating the land under the personal supervision of the landlord or any member of his family on payment of wages in cash or in kind but not by way of a share in the produce of the land, and (3) a person holding land directly under Government with permanent and heritable rights of cultivation therein on payment of rent either wholly or partly in cash; In the opinion of the lower appellate Court the Plaintiff, though a tenant as defined in Section 23 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913, he does not fall in any of the classes of tenants as given in Section 4. Therefore he cannot be a raiyat as contemplated by Section 5(2) of the same Act. In other words the view taken by the lower appellate Court seems to be that the list of classes of tenants given in Section 4 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913 is not exhaustive. Therefore though the Plaintiff may be a tenant, but not necessarily of any of the classes given in Section 4. In other words the view taken by the lower appellate Court seems to be that the list of classes of tenants given in Section 4 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913 is not exhaustive. Therefore though the Plaintiff may be a tenant, but not necessarily of any of the classes given in Section 4. As such the conclusion come to by the lower appellate Court is that the Plaintiff though a tenant was not one as defined by the aforesaid Section 3(23) but only a bhag tenant as contemplated by Section 2(j) of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act, 1955. In my opinion, this approach made by the lower appellate Court is wholly wrong and cannot be sustained in law. The definition of the word 'tenant' as given in Section 2(j) of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act, 1955 is meant only for the purposes of that Act alone. It cannot and does not in any way affect the definition of the word 'tenant' as given in Section 3(23) of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913. So far as the scope of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act, 1955 is concerned, that visualises conflict between the landlord on one side and a person claiming tenancy on the other, and that was enacted, as its preamble suggests, in order to give protection to those persons who had been holding lands in the estates of the outgoing landlords and were being evicted thereafter by them. Here the dispute is not between the landlord on one side and a person claiming himself to be a tenant on the other. On the other hand the dispute here is between two rivals each claiming himself to be the' exclusive tenant of the suit-lands. Such a case is to be governed and decided in accordance with the definition of the word 'tenant' as provided in Section 3(23) of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913, and not as provided in Section 2(j) of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act, 1955. 5. Then the other question which arises for consideration is whether under the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913 the list of tenants as given in Section 4 is exhaustive or not. In my opinion, on a bare reading of the scheme as given in the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913 it is obvious that the list of the classes of tenants as given in Section 4 of the Act is exhaustive. In my opinion, on a bare reading of the scheme as given in the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913 it is obvious that the list of the classes of tenants as given in Section 4 of the Act is exhaustive. Necessarily it follows therefore that once a person is held to be a tenant as defined in Section 3(23) of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913 he has to fall in one on the other of the classes enumerated in Section 4 of that Act. The lower appellate Court in dealing with this as question has conceded that, "the Plaintiff is neither a tenure holder nor a Chandanadar of the suit-land nor is he a person who held the land under another raiyat because the Rani is not a raiyat but she is tenure- holder". If that is so, then the only class that is left for consideration is that of raiyats. The lower appellate Court, however, seems to think that though that is the only class of raiyat to which the Plaintiff as a tenant can fall, but in view of the fact that he has failed to satisfy the Court that he is a raiyat as defined in Section 5(2) of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913, he cannot be regarded as a raiyat, not withstanding the fact that he may be a tenant as defined in Section 3(23). In my opinion, here again the view taken by the lower appellate Court is not sustainable. It is true that there is a definition provided for the word 'raiyat' in Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913, but that definition is meant only to provide a distinction between a raiyat on one side and a tenure-holder on the other as is clear from the discussions made in Hari Mohan Mandal Sarkar v. Gour Mohan Sarkar ILR 56 Cal. 1164 and AIR 1935 47 (Privy Council) . Therefore I have no habitation to hold that the Plaintiff, if he is a tenant, has to be taken as a raiyat in view of the finding given by the lower appellate Court that he is neither a tenure-holder nor a raiyat nor even a Chandanadar. 1164 and AIR 1935 47 (Privy Council) . Therefore I have no habitation to hold that the Plaintiff, if he is a tenant, has to be taken as a raiyat in view of the finding given by the lower appellate Court that he is neither a tenure-holder nor a raiyat nor even a Chandanadar. In view therefore of his long possession of the lands in suit upto the year 1957 or 1958 he is entitled to have the advantage of getting the benefit of Section 24 as a settled raiyat of the village. It is true that the case of the Plaintiff as set up in the plaint, that these lands were originally settled with him by the Rani sometime about 30 years back, has not been established as found by both the Courts below. But that fact by itself is neither here nor there, if it is firmly established, as is the case here he has been in possession of the land since the year 1935-36 and that as such he has been paying rent to the landlord and further that he is one of the settled raiyats of the village. In these circumstances the mere fact that the Plaintiff has failed to prove his original story of settlement can be no ground for defeating the title as claimed by him on the basis of his being a raiyat of the village and as such entitled to the rights which accrues to him in law u/s 24 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913. 6. Accordingly the appeal is allowed the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and those of the trial Court are restored. But in the circumstances of the case there will be no order for costs. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed