JUDGMENT K.S. Varma, J. - This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit filed by him for possession over plots Nos. 105 and 106 by demolition of certain constructions made by the defendants. The suit was dismissed by the trial court by judgment and decree dated 18-10-1965. The plaintiff aggrieved by the said decree has filed the present appeal. 2. A close scrutiny of the case discloses that on the 7th Dec. 1931 one Kunwar Bahadur Singh who was an intermediary of village Bhilawan, Tahsil and District Lucknow granted a lease-Theka in respect of plots Nos. 105 and 106 for 99 years in favour of one Sheo Dutt Rai. This lease-Theka was effected by a registered deed. Subsequently, by registered deed dated 15-1-1946 Sheo Dutt Rai transferred all his rights held by him under the deed of lease dated 7-12-1931 in favour of the plaintiff and one Onkar Mall on an annual rent of Rs. 70/- and by another registered deed dated 4-6-1948 Onkar Mall relinquished all his rights in favour of the plaintiff who thereupon became entitled to all rights covered by the deed of lease dated 7-12-1931 referred to in para 1 of the plaint. The plaintiffs case is that defendants 1 and 2 taking advantage of the plaintiffs absence from the village wrongfully and illegally put up certain constructions over a small portion of plot No. 105 without plaintiffs knowledge or consent. The plaintiff requested the defendants to remove the structures but they did not do so. In the plaint. the plaintiff has impleaded defendants 1 and 2 as those persons who have made constructions and other persons have been impleaded as those who helped the defendants in making constructions. According to the plaintiff, cause of action for the suit arose in July, 1948. The suit was, however, filed by the plaintiff in the court of Munsif which was returned to the court of the Civil Judge and there the suit was registered as Regular Suit No. 44 of 1960. 3. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 alone. It was contended in the written statement that neither the plaintiff nor his predecessor Sheo Dutt Rai were in possession of the property in suit and that the transfers mentioned in para 2 of the plaint are all fictitious. 3. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 alone. It was contended in the written statement that neither the plaintiff nor his predecessor Sheo Dutt Rai were in possession of the property in suit and that the transfers mentioned in para 2 of the plaint are all fictitious. It is also contended that the defendant No. 1 acquired plots 105 and 106 from the Zarnindar of village Bhilawan for building purposes. The defendant also contended that he has become owner of the plots and the constructions thereon in view of S. 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and, at any rate, claimed rights under S. 60 of the Indian Easements Act. It was also contended that the defendant had acquired rights by adverse possession. 3A. On the above pleadings a number of issues were framed. They are as follows :- "1. Whether the plaintiff is the lessee of the land in suit? 2. Whether the suit is within time? 3. Whether defendant No. 1 acquired any right in the land in suit under section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act? 4. Whether defendant No. 1 has put up any permanent construction on the land in suit, if so, has he acquired any right under section 60 of the Indian Easements Act? 5. Whether defendant No. 1 has acquired any title to the land in suit by adverse possession? 6. Whether the suit is barred by estoppel and acquiscence? 7. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties or causes of action? 8. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled." The lower appellate Court while recording his findings on issues 1, 2, 3 and 5 held that Kunwar Bahadur Singh was the owner and Zamindar of the plots in dispute and granted a lease-Theka of plots in favour of Sheo Dutt Rai for a period of 99 years at Rs. 50/- per annum as rent under the registered deed dated 7-12-1931. This document is Ext. 13. It has also been found by the court below that Sheo Dutt Rai executed the deed Ext. 11 and thereby transferred all the rights that he had in favour of the plaintiff and one Onkar Mal. The court by reference to Ext. 50/- per annum as rent under the registered deed dated 7-12-1931. This document is Ext. 13. It has also been found by the court below that Sheo Dutt Rai executed the deed Ext. 11 and thereby transferred all the rights that he had in favour of the plaintiff and one Onkar Mal. The court by reference to Ext. 12 has also held that Onkar Mal relinquished all his rights which he had in the plots in dispute in favour of the plaintiff. It has also been found that the plaintiff was the lessee of the plots in question. After the consideration of the evidence on record, the court below recorded a finding that defendant No. 1 constructed a pucca hotel building on a portion of the disputed plots in 1944 and that the said building still continues to exist. It was also held that defendant No. 1 remained in possession over the plots in dispute and the plaintiff never came in possession of the said plots. On these facts the point that emerges for consideration of this court is whether the plaintiff being a lessee is entitled to any rights in the land in suit. A perusal of Ext. 13 would indicate that Kunwar Bahadur Singh had leased out the plots in dispute to Sheo Dutt Rai for making constructions thereon in connection with setting up of a factory for Ata and Chuna. The deed also contains a stipulation that the lessee shall not plant grove on the land in dispute. The deed also provides that it will be open to the lessee to transfer his rights but in that case the rent would be enhanced. A perusal of the deed Ext. 13 indicates that the plots in dispute were let out by the then Zamindar Kunwar Bahadur Singh for the purpose of setting up a factory. The rights under Ext. 13 were transferred to the plaintiff and Onkar Mal and after that Onkar Mal transferred his rights to the plaintiff. In this way the plaintiff became the lessee of plots 105 and 106 under the terms of the lease deed dated 7-12-1931, Ext. 13. The question arises as to what would be the effect of a lease such as is described in Ext. In this way the plaintiff became the lessee of plots 105 and 106 under the terms of the lease deed dated 7-12-1931, Ext. 13. The question arises as to what would be the effect of a lease such as is described in Ext. 13 after coming into force of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, (U.P. Act I of 1951) (hereinafter to be referred to as U.P. Act I of 1951). Reference will have to be made to certain provisions of U.P. Act I of 1951 and the U.P. Tenancy Act (U.P. Act XVII of 1939) (hereinafter to be referred to as the U.P. Tenancy Act). S. 3 (26) of U.P. Act I of 1951 provides that the words 'Thekedar' and 'tenant' shall have the same meaning as has been assigned to those words in U.P. Tenancy Act. S. 3 (23) of the U.P. Tenancy Act defines 'tenant' as meaning a person by whom rent is or but for a contract expressed or implied would be payable. "Rents" has been defined by S. 3 (18) of the said Act as meaning "whatever is, in cash or kind, or partly in cash and partly in kind, payable on account of the use or occupation of land or on account of any right in land." According to S. 3(10) 'land' means land which is let or held for growing of crops or a grove or land for pasturage. It includes land covered by water used for the purpose of growing Singhara or other produce but does not include land for the time being occupied by buildings or appurtenants thereto. A close analysis of the said provisions read with S. 3(26) of U.P. Act I of 1951 would indicate that a person to whom the land has been let out for agricultural purposes would be a 'tenant' within the meaning of U.P. Act I of 1951. In the instant case it is obvious from a perusal of Ext. 13 that the land was let out for setting up a Karkhana for Choona and Aata and there was a specific prohibition that the lessee shall not plant grove on the land in dispute. It is thus obvious that the land in respect of which rights were conferred by Ext. 13 was not 'land' either within the meaning of U.P. Tenancy Act or U.P. Act I of 1951. It is thus obvious that the land in respect of which rights were conferred by Ext. 13 was not 'land' either within the meaning of U.P. Tenancy Act or U.P. Act I of 1951. S. 3(14) of U.P. Act I of 1951 defines 'land' as meaning land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture. It is thus clear that under the U.P. Tenancy Act and U.P. Act I of 1951, plots Nos. 105 and 106 are not 'land' within the meaning of the said Acts. 4. The question that now arises is as to what is the effect of the enforcement of U.P. Act I of 1951 on the rights of the plaintiff who claims to be a lessee-Thekedar of the plots in dispute. Under S. 4 of U.P. Act I of 1951 after the issue of a notification under the said Act, all estate situate in Uttar Pradesh shall vest in the State and such estate shall stand transferred to and vest in the State free from all encumbrances. S. 6 of U.P. Act I of 1951 provides for consequences of the vesting of an estate in the State. The said section provides that when notification under S. 4 of the Act is issued, all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries in every estate in such area including land (cultivable or barren) shall cease and vest in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances. The land in question does not come within any of the exceptions mentioned in S. 6(a) of U.P. Act I of 1951 and, therefore, the same shall vest in the State of Uttar Pradesh. On the issue of the notification under section 4 of U.P. Act I of 1951, all the rights of the intermediaries shall come to an end and the land referred to in section 6 of the said Act shall vest in the State of Uttar Pradesh. S. 3 (12) of U.P. Act I of 1951 defines an 'intermediary' as meaning a proprietor of an estate. It is thus obvious that on the enforcement of U.P. Act I of 1951 all the rights of Kunwar Bahadur Singh in the land in dispute came to an end and vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances. The Theka, if any. It is thus obvious that on the enforcement of U.P. Act I of 1951 all the rights of Kunwar Bahadur Singh in the land in dispute came to an end and vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances. The Theka, if any. in favour of the plaintiff would thus also come to an end and the land would vest in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from any obligations that might he created by Ext. 13. We find that the land in question does not come within the exceptions mentioned in S. 6(a) of U.P. Act I of 1951. That being the position, the land in question vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh and all the obligations created by Ext. 13 would automatically come to an end and the State of Uttar Pradesh would be the owner of all the plots free from all encumbrances created by the said document. A person who was admitted as a Thekedar is protected by sections 12 and 13 of U.P. Act I of 1951 provided the Theka was given for purposes of cultivation of the land by the Thekedar personally. In this case, it is obvious from a perusal of Ext. 13 that the Theka executed by the Zamindar was not for the purposes of cultivation by the Thekedar personally. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff will not be entitled to the benefits of sections 12 and 13 of U.P. Act I of 1951. 5. Mr. Umesh Chandra learned counsel for the appellant argued this appeal at great length and has pressed all the grounds taken in the grounds of appeal. For the reasons that we have already indicated above, it is not possible to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the plots in dispute have not vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The land in dispute was not leased out by the Zamindar for agricultural purposes, it was leased out for setting up a factory and there was a specific provision that the lessee shall not plant grove on the land in dispute. In this background, it is obvious that the land in dispute is not 'land' within the meaning of U.P. Act I of 1951. The land does not come within any of the exceptions mentioned in S. 6(a) of U.P. Act I of the 1951. In this background, it is obvious that the land in dispute is not 'land' within the meaning of U.P. Act I of 1951. The land does not come within any of the exceptions mentioned in S. 6(a) of U.P. Act I of the 1951. The conclusion, therefore, is irresistible that the plots in dispute vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from the obligations created by Ext. 13. On the date of vesting, the rights of the intermediary, namely Kunwar Bahadur Singh came to an end and the same vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances. If the land had vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the manner indicated above, the plaintiff has no right to maintain the suit. The plaintiff is also not entitled to the benefits of sections 12 and 13 of U.P. Act I of 1951 as observed above. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the plaintiff had no right in the land in dispute on the date of vesting i.e. 1-7-1952 and also had no right on the date of the suit. In our opinion, the suit filed by the plaintiff was rightly dismissed. 6. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. However, the costs of this court shall be borne by the parties.