Short Note : The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for a declaration that the defendant-appellant who was employed as a Hali was not a sub-tenant in the lands in dispute, but the plaintiff-respondent was the Bhumiswami of the lands. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendant-appellant was a tenant and this sub-lease was granted in contravention of the provisions of Revenue law and therefore, the defendant-appellant had acquired the rights of Bhumiswami. The first appellate Court below examined the legal position on the, basis of assumption that even if the defendant-appellant was granted the lands as a sub-tenant still the sub-lease was in contravention of the provisions of section 78 of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, the defendant-appellant could not acquire the rights of an occupancy tenant. The learned Judge therefore, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent. Held: It is not in dispute that originally when the contract was entered into between the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-appellant in Samvat year 2016, the law applicable was Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act Section 78 of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act clearly provides that anyone who obtains possession of any land by virtue of any transfer or sub-lease shall be deemed to be a trespasser and liable to ejectment if the transfer is in contravention of the provisions of this Act. According to the case set up by the defendant-himself he acquired this land as a sub-lease from the plaintiff-respondent. Section 73 of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act clearly provides that a pacca tenant shall not sub-let for any period what so ever any land comprised in his holdings except in the cases provided for in section 74, Admittedly the case of the plaintiff-respondent does not fall in the category of disabled person under section 74 of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act. Apparently, the sub-lease alleged to have been created in favour of the defendant-appellant in Samvat-year 2016 is in contravention of the provisions of M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act and, therefore, under section 78 of the Act the appellant shall only be a trespasser liable to ejectment. Apparently, the sub-lease alleged to have been created in favour of the defendant-appellant in Samvat-year 2016 is in contravention of the provisions of M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act and, therefore, under section 78 of the Act the appellant shall only be a trespasser liable to ejectment. Apart from it the learned Court below has found it as a fact that the contract between the parties was not that of a sub-tenant but merely a service contract for appointment of the appellant as a Hali. On that finding of fact also the defendant-appellant's appeal deserves to be dismissed. Nathu Ram v. Ranchhod Prasad and others, 1970 RN 75, relied on. Nihalkaran v. Ramgopal, 1966 RN 331, distinguished. Amarsingh and others v Balbhadrasingh and others, 1966 RN 477, referred to. Appeal dismissed.