which is not denied, the land in dispute cannot be treated to be appurtenant land (sahan) of the house of the appellant-plaintiff. Under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 particularly Section 9 appurtenant land can be claimed by occupier and the private wells, trees in abadi and buildings can be settled with the existing owner or occupier thereof. In the case of Ramji Rai Vs. Jagdish Malloh; (2004) 2 SAC 633: 2004 (1) RD 568, the Court has considered the meaning of appurtenant land - the word 'appurtenant' in the case of buildings, means the open piece of land for the beneficial enjoyment of, the building itself. 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) 2 SAC 223, 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.