V. Bhargava, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which the petitioners have challenged the decrees passed by the trial court, the first appellate court and the second appellate court for ejectment of the petitioners under Section 202 (b) (i) read with Section 21 (i) (c) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Board of Revenue, which was the second court of appeal, in its judgment held that there was no dispute as to facts between the parties.
(2.) Opposite parties 4 to 9 represented persons who were originally the tenants of the disputed land, but they were ejected by their land-holders sometime prior to the Ist of Sept. 1946. Thereafter the land-holders let out this land to petitioner No. 2 and opposite parties Nos. 10 to 14 and they in their turn sublet the land to petitioner No. 1. Subsequently the U.P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act (10 of 1947) came into force and under Section 27 of that Act a right accrued to opposite parties Nos. 4 to 9 to claim reinstatement. Consequently, opposite parties nos. 4 to 9 presented an application under Section 27 of that Act. That application was allowed. When allowing that application, the court held that the Proviso to sub-sec. (3) of Section 27 of that Act applied to this case. The result was that the petitioner No. 2 and opposite parties nos, 10 to 14 were declared as sub-tenants, not liable to ejectment for a period of three years. Petitioner no. 1 who was their sub-tenant until this order, thus, became their sub-sub-tenant. This order of reinstatement under Section 27 in favour of opposite parties nos. 4 to 9 was made on the 8th of March 1950. Then, on the 21st of May, 1953, this suit was instituted by opposite parties nos. 4 to 9 for ejectment of the two petitioners and opposite parties nos. 10 to 14. That suit was decreed by the trial court and that decree has been upheld by the first appellate court as well as by the Board of Revenue which was the second appellate court.
(3.) The only point which is raised in this petition, in view of the facts mentioned above, is that opposite parties nos. 4 to 9, after having obtained an order of reinstatement under Section 27 of Act 10 of 1947 did not execute that order, and since the execution of that order had to be sought within a period of three years from the date of the order, their right to execute it became time-barred. It was urged that the Board of Revenue, in these circumstances, should have held that opposite parties nos. 4 to 9 lost all rights which they could have acquired under that order of reinstatement if they had gat it executed, and having failed to do so, it must be held that the order of reinstatement became ineffective and the opposite parties acquired no fresh rights by virtue of it, so that the two petitioners and opposite parties nos. 10 to 14 continued to possess the rights which had been conferred on them by the land-holders when the land was let out to them before the 1st of Sept. 1946.;