the ultimate fact finding authority the contention on behalf Of the respondents who were the appellants before the Board, was that they had been recorded as occupants in the revenue papers of 1356 F. and hence they were entitled to be reinstated to possession, it being unnecessary for them to prove that they were in actual possession in 1356 F. The arguments before the Board of Revenue on behalf of the present appellants were : (1) as the appellants were not in possession, they were not sub tenants either in 1356, F. or before and hence they could not be regarded ' as occupants in 1356 F: in support of this proposition reliance was placed on a decision, of this Court in The Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Khalil ulRahman and others( ') which will be discussed later : (2) as both the courts below and the Board of Revenue, had concurrently found that there was no contract of sub tenancy, the respondents could not be regarded as sub tenants and could not rely on an entry in the year 1356 F. in their favour, and (3) a sub tenant was not an occupant and as such not, entitled ' to maintain an application under section 232 of the Act.