HELD: A person inducted as a sub-lessee, but who by expres; pro-· vision contained in s. 73 read with s, 78 of Act 66 of 1950 is declared a trespasser, does not acquire the States of an occupancy teant undr s. 0 185(1)(ii)(b) of the Madhya Prndesh Land Revenue Code. Act 29 of 1955 conferred protection only upon a ryatwafi sub-les·see, and a ryotwari sub-lessee was defined in that Act as meaning a person in whose favour the land was settled. A person. the lease in whose favour \'as declared void by virtue of Act 66 of 1950, could not claim the status of a. sub-lessee. That is so enacted in.s. 3 which excludes from the protection granted by Act 29 of 1955, »mongst others, a sub-lessee deemed t\l be a trespasser under s. 78 of Act 66 of 1950. A person mductod as a subE lessee contrary to the provisions of s. 73 of Act 66 of 1950 did not, there· fore, acquire any right undei' a contract of sub--letting, and his possession was not protected under Act 29 of 1955. Such a person is not a rvotwari sub-lessee defined in the Madhya Bharat Ryotwari Sub-Jesse protection Act 29 of 1955, and it is onJy on 'Ryotwari s11h-Jessee' as defined in that Act that the right of occupancv tenant i< conferred by s. 185(1 )(ii)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. [6.\6 El · F The obsd'vation contra in Rao Niha/karan v. Ramchandra (1963] M.P.L.J. 314, disapproved.
