JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court. The suit was a simple one. The facts as found by the Courts below are as follows: The plaintiff respondent is a Zamindar of the village and Lambardar. The defendants ' are tenants of the village who have a residential house. At the back of this house there is a Kothri and a Chabutra belonging to them and between the Kothri and the Chabutra the defendants had an old cattle-shed. That cattle shed fell down and on its site the defendants have built a new erection which they call a Chaupal, i.e., instead of using it for the purpose of sheltering their cattle they are using the building for the purpose of sheltering human beings. Toe Zamindar brought a suit and asked for the demolition of the Chabutra and the Chaupal on the ground that they were new constructions built without his sanction upon his land. The defendants pleaded that the Chabutra was old and that the Chaupal was built upon the land on which had stood their cattle shed and that they had, therefore, done nothing wrong, and had not encroached upon the Zamindar's land. The Courts below agreed in the findings of fact in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff appealed, to this Court bat only in respect of the Chaupal and not in respect of the Chabutra. As we have mentioned above the Chaupal stands on the land between the Chabutra and the defendants' house and fills up the space between. Moreover, it is land upon which a construction formerly stood which was used by the defendants for the purposes of a cattle shed. The learned Judge of this Court who heard the appeal came to the conclusion that the defendants had no right to build on this land without the consent of the Zemindar and he, therefore, in respect of the Chaupal allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for demolition. The defendants have appealed. In cur opinion one has to see whether the defendants are putting the land to any use other than that for which it was originally granted to them. Of course there is no evidence as to the original grant, but the facts that a cattle shed stood upon this land and that the land and the Chabutra have been for a long time in possession of the defendants without any exception being taken by the Zamindar show that the land in question was granted to the defendants for the purposes of building and that in building upon it they have not overstepped the terms of the grant. It is not said that the defendants have raised upon this land any structure of such a permanent nature as to be clearly outside the terms of the original license nor have they attempted to use it for a shop or any other business. The lower Appellate Court has found as a fact that the present construction is only an improvement on the old construction which formerly stood on the plot, which has always been in the defendants' possession We think in the circumstances that the defendants were justified in building the Chaupal and that they have not overstepped their rights as tenants We must not be understood as holding that a tenant has a right to build upon land which has been given to him for any other purpose. Every tenant is bound by the terms of the grant and cannot overstep them. Long user and long possession may be good evidence of what the terms of the original grant were. In our opinion the appeal succeeds. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the learned Judge of this Court and restore the decree of the lower Appellate Court. The appellants will have their costs in this Court.