JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The District Board, Allahabad, auctioned tahbazari rights, i.e., to collect 'khonchi' in Rithaia Bazar, village Kotwa, district Allahabad. The Appellant Ghiranji Lal was the highest bidder. Accordingly, the contract was given to him for a sum of Rs. 4,350/- for one year beginning from 1st October, 1952. Under the contract the Appellant was entitled to realise the tahbazari dues from the various shopkeepers in the bazar. He was to pay the contracted sum of Rs. 4,350/- to the District Board. The Appellant, however, paid Rs. 2,150/-. He refused to pay the balance on the ground that for several reasons he had not been assisted by the District Board in the task of collecting the tahbazari dues. The District Board took proceedings to recover the balance of Rs. 2,200/- as arrears of land revenue. The Tahsildar issued a notice u/s 280 of the UP ZA Act to the Appellant requiring him to pay Rs. 2,200/- and intimating that in default it would be realised as arrears of land revenue. The Appellant challenged this notice by way of a writ petition. A learned single Judge held that the amount due was in respect of land which vested in the District Board and as such Section 225 of the ZA Act was dearly applicable and the proceedings were valid. 2. Under the contract the Appellant was required to pay a fixed sum irrespective of what amount of tahbazari he may himself be able to collect. It is clear that the contracted amount of Rs. 4,350/- was not the tahbazari to which the District Board may have been entitled. Tahbazari was payable by the shopkeepers of the bazar for using the land. The tahbazari might be equated with rent, sayar or other dues due in respect of property. But since those dues were not being realised by the District Board, it cannot be said that the present proceedings were for recovery of arrears of rent, sayar or other dues due in respect of property. The present proceedings were for recovery of an agreed amount payable by the Appellant to the District Board under a contract. The contract had no nexus with any particular property vesting in the District Board. The contract was in respect of a right to collect tahbazari from the users of the property. The amount which the Appellant was liable to pay to the Distt. The contract had no nexus with any particular property vesting in the District Board. The contract was in respect of a right to collect tahbazari from the users of the property. The amount which the Appellant was liable to pay to the Distt. Bjard could not in law be equated with rent, sayar or other dues due in respect of a particular property. 3. Section 225 authorises recovery of arrears of rent, sayar or other dues in respect of property vesting in a local authority as arrears of land revenue. This provision was clearly inapplicable to the recovery of the balance of the contracted sum from the Appellant. 4. A somewhat similar view was taken by a Division Bench in Mumtaz Ali v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate 1970 ALJ 114. In that case the Petitioner had taken a contract to collect tahbazari tax from a Town Area on payment of a fixed sum of Rs. I3,500/- to the Town Area. It was held that that sum was not the amount of the tahbazari tax. It was the premium for the right to collect that tax. It was the consideration for the contract given to him by the Town Area Committee. The sum, therefore, could not be characterised as an arrear of tax. Section 21 of the Town Areas Act or Section 173-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act could not apply. We are in agreement with this view. 5. Learned Counsel for the District Board relied upon Sections 103 and 105 of the U.P. District Boards Act, 1922. Section 103 applies to a sum due on account of rent from a person to a Board in respect of land vested in or entrusted to the management of the Board. As seen above, the amount due from the Appellant was not rent in respect of any land. The Appellant was not using any land so as to be liable to pay rent therefor to the District Board. He was a mere rent collector in lieu of a consideration which was a fixed sum of money. Section 105 applies to fees to be fixed by bye-law or public auction or by agreement, for the use or occupation (otherwise than under a lease) in respect of any immovable property. The Appellant was not liable to pay any fees for the use or occupation of any immovable property. Section 105 applies to fees to be fixed by bye-law or public auction or by agreement, for the use or occupation (otherwise than under a lease) in respect of any immovable property. The Appellant was not liable to pay any fees for the use or occupation of any immovable property. By the contract with the District Board the Appellant was not given any right to use or occupy any property vesting in the District Board or under its management. None of these provisions entitled the District Board to recover the balance of the contracted money from the Appellant as arrears of land revenue. Their remedy lay elsewhere. 6. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The proceedings and the impugned notice for recovery of the aforesaid amount as arrears of land revenue are quashed. The Appellant will be entitled to his costs.