1. It is clear that before a person is entitled to claim a settlement under Section 9 of the Act, it must be found that the land was necessary for the enjoyment of the building. In the case of Sarjoo Vs. Vishwanath; (2004) the Court has further explained the meaning of appurtenant land for claiming the benefit of Section 9 U.P.Z.A&L.R. Act - A person claiming benefit of Section 9 must prove that he was enjoying the land for the enjoyment of building and keeping household materials etc. Mere fact that the door of such building does not open on the land, cannot lead to the interference that it is not being used for the beneficial enjoyment of the house. In view of above, I am of the considered view that the land in dispute cannot be claimed for the beneficial enjoyment the building by the plaintiff as there exits a passage between the house of the appellant-plaintiff and the land in dispute. It cannot be said that the land in dispute was necessary for enjoyment of the building. The first appellate Court has rightly observed that in case there is a passage between the house of the plaintiff and the land in dispute; then it cannot be treated to be 'Sahan'. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Trial Court has wrongly considered the first and second advocate commissioner reports and has recorded a perverse finding with respect to the statement of the appellant-plaintiff are concerned, since this Court has come to conclusion that the appellant-plaintiff cannot claim any right over the land in dispute treating it to be 'Sahan' of his house as there exists a passage between the house of appellant-plaintiff and the land in dispute, as such, there is no need to go through the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court.%