48 SOCIAL SCIENTIST sharecropping for the reasons explained above. As the nature or pattern of tenancy (whether commercial or subsistence) depends upon the farm size group to which tenants belong, we look first at the size-distribution of the tenants. Table I shows the number of different categories of farmers (viz, pure owners, combined owners, combined tenants, pure tenants and rent receivers) falling under different farm size groups. It shows that all the pure tenants and even combined tenants belonged to marginal farm size groups, and not even a single holder in the other two size groups, i e, 2.5-5.0 acres and 5.0 acres and above was observed to lease in land. This suggests the predominance of subsistence tenancy and the complete absence of commercial tenancy in the area under study. TABLE IFARM SIZE AND PATTERN OF AGRICULTURAL TENANCY Farm size Tet lurial Groups (in acres] Pure Owners Combined Combined Rent Pure Total Owners Tenants Receivers Tenants 0-2.5 10 1 7 4 7 29 (66 66) (12.50) (100.00) (80.00) (10000) (69.04) 2.5-5 0 4 I — 1 — 6 (26.68) (12.50; (20.00) (14.28) 5.0 and above 1 6 — — — 7 (666) (75.00) (16.68) Total 15 8 7 5 7 42 (^ 00.00) (10000) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) NOTE: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage. The complete absence of leasing-in by the top two size groups of farmers was probably because of the fact that the operators in these two size groups generally belonged to the upper stratum (caste) of society and people who wanted to give their land on sharecropping did not prefer them not only because they were considered comparatively inefficient but also because they could not be pressurised to extract additional non-remunerative favours generally associated with the leasing arrangements. The various aspects of terms and conditions which have been taken into consideration in the present study are share in produce and cost, labour services, security, length of lease, and status of terms and conditions. i) Share in produce and costs: When asked about the sharing pattern in produce, all the respondents reported sharing of produce (both main as well as by-product) to be on a 50:50 basis. The 50:50 sharing of produce is uniformly followed for all the crops, both HYV and local varieties. Similarly, all the tenants in tlie sample reported that the entire