JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a second appeal filed by Latori Singh under Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against the judgment and decree dated 10-8-1981 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in appeal no. 253 of 1979 dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 30-5-1979 in a suit filed (by the respondent no. 1 under Section 202 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 which was decreed. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that the respondent no. 1 Munshi Singh being the Pradhan of the village filed a suit under Section 202 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the appellant and defendant No. 2 on the ground that the latter are asami but they had made default in paying the rent, hence they should be ejected. 3. The suit was contested by appellant and defendant no. 2 Narain Singh on the ground that the land had been given to them for abadi and that they were not liable to ejectment under Section 202 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 because they were not asami. 4. The trial court partly decreed the suit and ordered that eviction of the appellant and O. P. No. 2 from an area of 0-3-2. 5. An appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed, hence this second appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent No. 1 is absent. 7. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants were asamis and they were required to pay rent in which they had made default, hence they were liable to ejectment. However the plaintiff did not produce any evidence to prove that the defendants were ever required to pay any rent. Some agreements on stamp paper have been filed by the plaintiff which indicate that the land was given to the defendants and some other persons for abadi with the stipulation that they would make construction within two years and would not transfer the land within five years. There is no condition included thereon that the defendants would pay any rent to the Gaon Sabha. Consequently in view of such agreement, the defendants could not be evicted on the ground of being defaulters since they were not required to pay any rent. There is no condition included thereon that the defendants would pay any rent to the Gaon Sabha. Consequently in view of such agreement, the defendants could not be evicted on the ground of being defaulters since they were not required to pay any rent. The plaintiff did not come up with the theory based on the conditions mentioned in the agreement. In such circumstances, the defendants could not be evicted at all in the present suit. The trial court did not examine the validity of the agreement properly and decreed the suit on extraneous material. The appeal was also wrongly dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner who also did not weigh the evidence on record properly. 8. In view of the above discussion, it is amply clear that the plaintiff's suit was liable to be thrown out and was wrongly decreed. This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the judgments decrees passed by both the courts below are set aside and the suit is dismissed.