JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed a suit, for a declaration that they are the bhumidhars and the defendant is in possession of the land for her lifetime only in lieu of maintenance. 2. One Mahesh was a fixed rate tenant of the plots in suit. On 5-1-1921 he executed a gift deed of the fixed rate tenancy held by him including the plots in suit in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants. The defendant respondent is Mahesh's daughter-in-law from a predeceased son. She filed a suit (No. 237 of 1925) for maintenance. The suit was decreed in terms of a compromise. The decree stated that the plaintiff is allotted two big has of land for her maintenance until she is alive, that she would have no right to transfer it and in case she marries again she will lose the two bighas, that the defendant wall pay only rupees five to the Plaintiffs irrespective of the actual rent and that in case any rent over rupees five is recovered from the plaintiff by any one she will be entitled to recover the same from the Plaintiffs. 3. This decree was passed on 19-8-1925. The defendant respondent has been in cultivatory possession of the land so given to her under this decree since then and she has been paying a fixed amount of rupees five for it. She was entered in the revenue papers as a sub-tenant. After the abolition of the zamindari she has been entered in the revenue papers as an adhivasi and later on as a sirdar. The plaintiffs grievance is that the defendant was not a sirdar and that the plaintiffs were the bhumidhars of the land in suit, the defendant having only a right of cultivation for her lifetime. 4. In defence the lady claimed to be the full-fledged sirdar without any encumbrance of any kind. 5. The issue whether the defendant was a sirdar of the suit land was referred to the revenue court. The revenue court held that the defendant was a sub-tenant and that she became an adhivasi and in due course a sirdar. 6. The learned Munsif, on the evidence, held that the defendant could not be a sub-tenant as her possession was only in lieu of maintenance. But as the finding of the revenue court was binding on him he accepted it and dismissed the suit. 6. The learned Munsif, on the evidence, held that the defendant could not be a sub-tenant as her possession was only in lieu of maintenance. But as the finding of the revenue court was binding on him he accepted it and dismissed the suit. 7. The plaintiffs appealed. In appeal it was urged that the status of the defendant was only that of a licensee and she could not acquire any tenure recognised by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The appellate Court held that the compromise decree made the defendant a fixed rate tenant in her own right and that she has now become a bhumidhar under Sec. 18 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It, however, held that, in any case, the defendant was a sub-tenant. It repelled the plea that the status of the defendant was that of a licencee. It further held that she was in possession in her own right and as she was recorded in the Khasra of 1356F. she would acquire rights under the Act and could not be held to be a licensee. 8. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs have come to this Court in second appeal. 9. Sri A. P. Pandey, appearing for the appellants, has urged that the defendant-respondents possession could not be in her own right in view of the attending circumstances under which she came in possession of the plots. The Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act not having conferred specifically any irrevocable rights on a person in the position of the defendant-respondent, the defendant-respondent shall be entitled to remain in possession with the same rights and limitations as before. The submission is plausible but cannot sustain scrutiny. 10. The view of the lower appellate court that the defendant-respondent became a fixed rate tenant cannot be supported. A fixed rate tenant under the prevailing Tenancy Act had heritable and transferable rights. The defendant was specifically not given any right of transfer. Her right to remain in possession was liable to be defeated on her remarriage. She was, therefore, not a fixed rate tenant as known to law. The tenancy law did not recognise a fixed rate tenant with such limitations and impediments. The defendant-respondent, therefore, did not become a fixed rate tenant under the compromise decree. 11. I also do not agree with the view of the court below that the defendant became a sub-tenant. She was, therefore, not a fixed rate tenant as known to law. The tenancy law did not recognise a fixed rate tenant with such limitations and impediments. The defendant-respondent, therefore, did not become a fixed rate tenant under the compromise decree. 11. I also do not agree with the view of the court below that the defendant became a sub-tenant. A tenancy can be created in three ways: by express contract; by conduct implying a contract or by operation of law, e.g. an exproprietary tenancy arises at law on transfer of sir land; or a hereditary tenancy arises on land ceasing to be sir. There is no provision in either of the Tenancy Acts of 1901 or 1926 or 1939 providing for or recognising the creation of a sub-tenancy by operation of law. The decree of 1926 whereby the land in suit was given to the woman in lieu of her maintenance, will not confer the status of a sub-tenant on the lady. 12. It is urged that ever since the decree the defendant-respondent has been entered in the revenue papers as a sub-tenant. Mere entry of a persons name as a sub-tenant in the revenue records does not establish sub-tenancy. These records are not a source of acquisition of title. The entry only means that the village patwari found the person cultivating the land and he put him down as a sub-tenant. See Beni Madho v. Kanhaiya Lal, 2 R.D. 275 and Deoraj Upadhya v. Sita Ram, 15 R.D. 208. 13. When a claim of tenancy is made the facts and circumstances have to be scanned to see if relationship of landlord and tenant was intended or existed. A sub-tenancy is a transfer of a part of the tenants interest. If a tenant transfers his interest by way of a sub-lease the interest of the sub-tenant comes to an end on termination of the tenants lease; the subtenant has no right to remain in possession thereafter. This is not the case here. The giving of possession in lieu of maintenance does not involve any transfer of the male holders interests or title in the land. He can assign it. His interest can be sold in execution for a money decree against him. See: Mst. Ram Kunwar v. Amar Nath, AIR 1932 Allahabad 361. This is not the case here. The giving of possession in lieu of maintenance does not involve any transfer of the male holders interests or title in the land. He can assign it. His interest can be sold in execution for a money decree against him. See: Mst. Ram Kunwar v. Amar Nath, AIR 1932 Allahabad 361. There it was held that a widow has a right to occupy the land so long as she remains entitled to maintenance. The purchaser takes the land but subject to this right of the widow. He cannot dispossess the woman. 14. A fixed rate tenant is governed by his personal law in matter of transfer and succession. In the instant case parties were Hindus and the Hindu Law will apply to them. The principles enunciated in Mst. Ram Kunwar's case, AIR 1932 Allahabad 361, will be applicable to the transaction involved in this case. He is entitled to have the possession only when the right of maintenance comes to an end. The incidents attaching to a widow in possession in lieu of maintenance are thus different from that of a sub-tenant. The compromise decree did postulate that the woman will pay a fixed sum of rupees five to the plaintiff-appellant. But this does not indicate a sub-tenancy. The arrangement seems to have been to make the lady pay a portion of the rent for the fixed rate tenancy which was payable to the landholder. It was contemplated that the landholder may proceed against the lady for the entire rent of the holding. That is why a provision was made that d any rent in excess of rupees five is realised from her she will be entitled to recover the same from the appellant. The rights and liabilities created by the compromise decree do not fit in with the concept of a sub-tenant. The woman cannot, therefore, be held to be a sub-tenant. 15. The appellants urged that she would, at best, be a licencee. This position also is not acceptable. The plaintiffs had no right to terminate the licence. The decree gave the woman an irrevocable tenure for the time being. The revocability was dependent on conditions mentioned in the decree (itself. It was not dependent on the volition of the plaintiffs. 16. For the appellants reliance has been placed on Hansu Koeri v. Jang Bahadur, 1963 ALJ 456. The plaintiffs had no right to terminate the licence. The decree gave the woman an irrevocable tenure for the time being. The revocability was dependent on conditions mentioned in the decree (itself. It was not dependent on the volition of the plaintiffs. 16. For the appellants reliance has been placed on Hansu Koeri v. Jang Bahadur, 1963 ALJ 456. That case is not applicable. There a creditor was put in possession of a certain land in lieu of payment for interest on a loan taken under a simple money bond. The parties had agreed that the creditor shall be liable to restore possession back on payment of the loan and interest. It was held that the status of the creditor was only that of a licensee which is revocable at any time on the debtors making payment. It was also held that the possession of the creditor was akin to that of a mortgagee and could not be better than him. A mortgagee becomes an asami under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the legislature did not postulate that a licencee who is in possession in lieu of interest can get a better status than that of a mortgagee. This case cannot apply. The possession of the defendant in the instant case is not revocable at the volition of the plaintiffs. The defendant had under the decree a fixed, tenure though such tenure was not specifically recognised by the then prevailing tenancy law. 17. The defendant-respondent does not become an asami. Sec. 21 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act mentions the cases where persons become asamis. None of the clauses of this section refers to a person holding land in lieu of maintenance. Sec. 11 says that a person holding sir and khudkasht land in lieu of maintenance allowance shall be deemed to be asami thereof entitled to hold the land for so long as the right for maintenance allowance subsists. This provision is confined to sir or khudkasht land. It cannot be extended by analogy to other kinds of land. In the instant case the land given to the woman was part of a fixed rate tenancy. It will not be covered by Sec. 11 of the Act. 18. The question is whether the defendant-respondent will be an adhivasi. This provision is confined to sir or khudkasht land. It cannot be extended by analogy to other kinds of land. In the instant case the land given to the woman was part of a fixed rate tenancy. It will not be covered by Sec. 11 of the Act. 18. The question is whether the defendant-respondent will be an adhivasi. Under Sec. 3 of the U.P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act, 31 of 1952 every person who is in cultivatory possession of a land during the year 1359 F. but who did not become a bhumidhar, sirdar, adhivasi or asami under Secs. 18 to 21 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, became with effect from the date of vesting, an adhivasi, except in certain class of cases mentioned in that section. Those exceptions are not applicable here. The defendant-respondents was in cultivatory possession in 1359F. She, therefore, became an adhivasi under this provision. 19. Under Sec. 20 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, a person recorded an occupant in the revenue records of 1356-F. also becomes an adhivasi. A person who is recorded in possession in his own right is an occupant. He has a right to occupy the land though he does not have any right of occupancy or any interest in the land. It is immaterial how such a person came in possession. He may have come in possession validly or illegally. A rank trespasser is undoubtedly an occupant of he himself claims the right to occupy the land. See Swami Prasad v. Board of Revenue, U. P., 1960 ALJ. 241 (F.B.) 20. A person who comes in possession in some colour of right but whose possession cannot be deemed to be on behalf of another, will also be an occupant. There is no particular formula for the entry of an occupant. In Amba Prasad, 1964 ALJ 805 (SC) case the Supreme Court held that between a tenant and a sub-tenant, the sub-tenant, and between the sub-tenant and an occupier, the occupier will be deemed to be the occupant. Amba Prasad v. M. A. Shah, 1964 ALJ 805 (S.C.) 21. Those who are held to be occupying the land for and on behalf of other persons have not been recognised as occupants. It has been held that a mortgagee is not an occupant. Vide R. S. Dubey v. Board of Revenue, 1957 ALJ 548. Amba Prasad v. M. A. Shah, 1964 ALJ 805 (S.C.) 21. Those who are held to be occupying the land for and on behalf of other persons have not been recognised as occupants. It has been held that a mortgagee is not an occupant. Vide R. S. Dubey v. Board of Revenue, 1957 ALJ 548. Sajhidars or marfatdars have also been denied the status oil an adhivasi on the same ground. Jagdish Prasad v. Board of Revenue, 1956 ALJ 317. Licensees have also not been recognised as occupants. See Swami Prasad v. Board of Revenue, 1960 ALJ 241 (F.B.). All these are persons who hold land for someone else and not in their own right. 22. The defendant-respondent was not holding the land in suit on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants. She held it in her own right. Her right to maintenance was existent on the date preceding the date for vesting and so her entry in 1356 F. was in recognition of her claim to hold the land in lieu of maintenance. She, therefore was an occupant within the meaning of Sec. 20(B) of the Act, and became an adhivasi and was entitled to retain possession as such. 23. If a person is recorded as a subtenant in the revenue papers for 1356 F. but he is found not to be a sub-tenant, the entry in his favour will be an entry of an occupant and will make him an adhivasi under Sec. 20. See: Pir Khan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1965 ALJ 591. The defendant-respondent is entered in the revenue papers of 1356F. as a sub-tenant. We have seen above that she is not really a sub-tenant. The entry in her favour in 1356F. would hence be that of an occupant so as to confer on her the status of an adhivasi under Sec. 20. 24. The argument that a person holding on special terms under a decree of a court of law, should not be permitted to improve her position and rights, cannot prevail against a statutory enactment which brings about such a result. The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act sought to uproot the pre-existing tenures of agricultural land and establish a new order. If in the process, certain persons obtain benefits not recognised by the pre-existing law there can be no help. The defendant cannot be deprived of her rights on such a ground. The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act sought to uproot the pre-existing tenures of agricultural land and establish a new order. If in the process, certain persons obtain benefits not recognised by the pre-existing law there can be no help. The defendant cannot be deprived of her rights on such a ground. 25. The appeal fails and is dismissed. But, under the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs, throughout. Appeal dismissed.