JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri. S.M. Ifrahim, Commissioner, Jhansi Division recommending that the revision filed against the order dated April 4, 1973 passed by the Tahsildar/Asstt. Collector, Baberu, in case no. 162 under rule-115-C of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules Gaon Sabha v. Daya may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. On the report of the Lekhpal that the revisionist had encroached upon plot no. 1560 (acre 9 Biswa), which was Gaon Sabha property, the Tahsildar had issued a show-cause notice to him. The revisionist filed the objection that he was in possession since before abolition of Zamindari on the basis of the lease. The Tahsildar, however, after considering the objection and the evidence on record, held that the lease was invalid and ordered the ejectment of the revisionist. The learned Commissioner has held that there was no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tahsildar. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that a bona fide dispute of title was involved and the courts below have acted with material illegality and against law by taking action in summary proceedings. He has also contended that the revisionist's possession has been for more than twelve years and title is proved. 5. A perusal of the record shows that the evidence on behalf of the Gao Sabha consisted of the statement of the Lekhpal along with an extract of the Khasra and the Khatauni. The Khatauni records the plot in dispute as banjar and the Lekhpal has deposed that the revisionist has occupied the land from 1380 Fasli. The evidence on behalf of the revisionist consisted of his own statement along with the statement of one Pratap Singh, ex Pradhan of the village and an unregistered lease dated July 24, 1951 shows to be executed by Pratap Singh, ex-Zamindar of the village. The lease states that the plot no. 1560 had been let out to the revisionist form 1359 Fasli at an annual rent of 11/2 rupees. The trail court has recorded the finding that the lease in question is valid or invalid we have to see the provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, which was in force in 1951. The lease states that the plot no. 1560 had been let out to the revisionist form 1359 Fasli at an annual rent of 11/2 rupees. The trail court has recorded the finding that the lease in question is valid or invalid we have to see the provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, which was in force in 1951. Section 56 of the U.P. Tenancy Act provides that a lease for a period exceeding one year or from year to year shall be made by a registered instrument only. Section 57 further provides that the parties to a lease may, in lieu of registering the same, obtain the attestation thereto of a revenue court of a revenue officer, not inferior in rank to to a qanungo. These provisions of law are very salutary and are meant to guard against the possibility of any person trying to ante-date a lease in order to derive valuable rights in land. As the lease deed in question has neither been registered nor attested, it is quite invalid in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. tenancy act. Further, two other circumstances also make the lease deed unworthy of being accepted. The first is that the revisionist has made no attempt since 1951 till now to get his name recorded in the revenue papers on the basis of the said lease deed. The second is that the lease deed while creating the right of tenancy in favour of the revisionist also created a liability of payment of rent against him. Before the abolition of Zamindari the rent was payable to Zamindar but after the abolition of Zamindari the rent is payable to the state Government. It may be that the Zamindar would some times not grant a receipt for payment of rent but that is not the position with the State Government. Since no rent has been paid by the revisionist to the state Government after the abolition of Zamindari, i.e. from 1952 onwards, it also shows that the lease deed itself is fictitious. The result thus is that the evidence that the revisionist has unlawfully trespassed over Gaon Sabha land was far more reliable than the evidence in his favour. The revisionist has failed to sow that any bona fide question of title was involved. On the other hand, it is established that this claim is entirely mala fide. The result thus is that the evidence that the revisionist has unlawfully trespassed over Gaon Sabha land was far more reliable than the evidence in his favour. The revisionist has failed to sow that any bona fide question of title was involved. On the other hand, it is established that this claim is entirely mala fide. No illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the trail court is established. 6. The result is that I see no force in this revision. Hence accepting the reference made by the learned Commissioner, the revision is hereby dismissed.