A.P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) This application in revision arises out of an application filed Under Sec. 12 of the UP Agriculturists Relief Act. The mortgaged property consisted of a fixed rate holding The mortgage sought to be redeemed was an unregistered one and was alleged to have been made for a consideration of Rs. 85. The application was contested on several grounds. It was pleaded inter alia that the applicant had no right to redeem and that the opposite parties were not mortgagees but tenants of the land and that the application was not Maintainable Under Sec. 12 of the UP Agriculturists Relief Act. The trial court held that the relationship between the parties was that of a mortgagor and mortgagee, that the opposite parties were not tenants of the land but were in possession as mortgagees and that the applicant had a right to redeem but could not redeem the mortgage under the provisions of S. 12 of the UP Agriculturists Relief Act because he was not an agriculturist who could take advantage of that section. The application was as a result dismissed.
(2.) The applicant went up in appeal to the Civil Judge who accepted the finding that the relationship between the parties was that of a mortgagor and mortgagee. He also did not differ with the finding that the applicant had a right to redeem. He thought that as no issue had been framed on the question whether the applicant was an agriculturist and was on that account entitled to take advantage of the provisions of the Agriculturists' Relief Act, the application should not have been dismissed on that ground. He, however, upheld the order of dismissal but on a different ground. That ground was that the ZA and LR Act having come into force, S. 12 of the Agriculturists Relief Act stood repealed. Under the new Act, the applicant had become a Bhumidhar and the opposite parties had become Asamis. The latter could be ejected only a/S. 202 of the Act but that Sec. did not contain any provision for the ejectment of Asamis like the opposite parties. The appeal of the applicant was as a result dismissed. It is against that order of dismissal of his appeal that the present application in revision has been filed.
(3.) It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the learned Civil Judge was not correct in his view that the application for the redemption of the mortgage had ceased to be maintainable as a result of the enactment of the ZA and LR Act.;