Hansaria,C.J.(Acting)-An agreement was entered into sometime in 1973 between the Manager Dheodam Tea Estate and the petitioner by which Pabhajan Tea Company allowed 100 acres of land to be used by the petitioner to-grow citronella grass. By another agreement in 1974 the garden authority allowed a further area of 40 acres of land to be used for-the aforesaid purpose. Subsequently, the afo­resaid land- came to be vested in the Government by virtue of the provisions -contained in the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 1956, hereinafter the Act. This vesting was sometime in October, 1974 The entire land was thereafter allotted by the Government to : Assam Small Scale Industries Development Corpor­ation in November, 1976. It is the case of the respondents that advance possession of the land was also given to the aforesaid Corporation where after there was encroachment and it is because of this that the provisions of Rules 18(2) and 18(3) of the Settlement Rules were invoked against the petitioner to obtain possession of the land. It is this eviction proceeding which has been assailed in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The short submission of Shri Baruah is that even if the land in question was an excess land within the meaning of the Act, the petitioner was entitled to settlement of the same in view of what has been laid .-down in section 16 of the Act read with Rule 16 of the Rules made under the Act. At this stage we may point out that though the case of the petitioner -was that there were 12 other persons with him to take settlement of the land we are not concerned with the 12 others as they are not before us. We would therefore, confine our attention with the interest of the petitioner alone which extends to 50 bighas .in view of the provisions in the Act inasmuch as it is apparent that it the petitioner was occupying the land as tenant he cannot hold land beyond 50 bighas. 3. The crucial question is whether wet can regard the petitioner as a tenant under the it-a garden. Shri Chaliha has drawn our attention in this connection to the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the tea garden wherein the petitioner has been described as contractor. 3. The crucial question is whether wet can regard the petitioner as a tenant under the it-a garden. Shri Chaliha has drawn our attention in this connection to the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the tea garden wherein the petitioner has been described as contractor. Sim Baruah contends that the description or the petitioner as contractor may not be regarded as clinching inasmuch as if the agreement is read in lull it would appear that the petitioner satisfies the definition of tenant as given in section 3(o) of the Act which reads as below : "tenant" means a person who holds land under another person and is, or but for a special contract would be, liable to pay rent for that land to that other person, and includes a per­son who cultivates the land of another person on condition of delivering a share of the produce”. 4. Shri Baruah contends that if the aforesaid agreement is read in its entirety it would become clear that the petitioner has to sharp his produce with the tea garden in as such as he had, agreed by the aforesaid agreement to supply citronella, grass at the rate of Rs. 100/- per metric tonne whereas the market price of the same was Rs. 250/-. Learned counsel states that it has therefore to be regarded that the petitioner was snaring more than half , of his produce with the tea garden and as such he has to be regarded as a tenant. We have felt. inclined to accept this , submission of Shri Baruah. Now-if the petitioner -was a tenant Rule 16 of the Rules made under the Act requires that acquired land has to be offered to a cultivating tenant who is: inoccupation of the land in questi­on. Of course for this purpose the tenant has to pay same, premium. 5. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we allow the petition to the extent that the petitioner Would be entitled to retain 50 bighas of land over which he has grown citronella grass or' any other agricultural produce after paying due premium! The ramming land finder possession of the petitioner if any, shall be relinquished in favour of the aforesaid Corporation failing which it would be open to the authorities to take forcible possession of the same. 6. The petition is allowed accordingly Smti.M.Sarma.J-I agree;