Judgment :- R.JAYASIMHA BABU, J. This appeal is by a temple whose suit for possession and for recovery of damages has been dismissed by the trial Court and which dismissal has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The plaintiff's case was that after the holding by a Division Bench of this Court in Appeal No.654/72 between the same parties that the respondents who are the defendants in the suit were not cultivating tenants; the plaintiff was entitled to approach the Civil Court for recovery of possession and that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to resort to Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961. The learned Single Judge has, after adverting to the definition of "cultivating tenant" in Section 2(5) of that Act of 1961 construed that definition as taking within its fold, even a person who is not a cultivating tenant, by relying on the reference in that definition to "any such person who continues in possession of land after the determination of the tenancy agreement". Those words "any such person" obviously refer to the person referred to in the main part of the definition which defines cultivating tenant thus: "(5) "cultivating tenant"— (i) means a person who contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of any land belonging to another under a tenancy agreement, express or implied;" 3. If a person was not contributing his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of the land under the tenancy agreement, whether that agreement be express or implied, then such a person cannot claim to be a 'cultivating tenant' eventhough he may be a tenant otherwise, eg., who is holding over and whose entry on the land was lawful under a contractual tenancy for a limited period of time. 4. In the appeal No. 654/72, a Division Bench of this Court had come to the definite conclusion that respondents are not cultivating tenants and has held: "By accepting this finding the only possible result which flows from it is that notwithstanding the fixation of the fair rent in 1962 under the mistaken impression that the defendants were cultivating tenants, such amount so fixed as fair rent cannot be said to be rent which the defendants are obliged to pay to the Devasthanam. . . . . . . Once we come to the conclusion that the defendants are not cultivating tenants, the payment of fair rent fixed under one of the Acts which highlight a cultivating tenant's status, cannot be the basis in a Court of law and cannot be the foundation for a claim against the opposite party". 5. The Division Bench in that case relieved the defendants in the suit who are the respondents before us and who were respondents in those appeals, from the liability on payment of fair rent which was very much more than the contractual rent which had been agreed upon. 6. The definition of "cultivating tenant" in the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 in Section 2(aa) is identical to the definition of that expression in the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural land) Act, 1961 in section 2(5). If a person is not a cultivating tenant for the purpose of that Act of 1955, he cannot become a cultivating tenant for the purposes of the latter Act of 1961. The definite finding given by the learned Single Judge in this case is that the respondents were not contributing their own physical labour for the cultivation of the land and they would therefore clearly fall outside the definition of "cultivating tenant". 7. The trial Court has held that the notice to quit has been properly given and that the defendants in the suit are only tenants holding over. The only obstacle to the suit being decreed was the view of the trial Court that the plaintiff ought to have proceeded under the special enactment and could not have approached the Civil Court for the relief sought by it. That view of the trial Court which has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge cannot be upheld. The plaintiff suit is required to be and is decreed. The appeal is allowed.