Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THIS spe cial appeal is directed against an order dis missing a writ petition filed by the appel lant. It arises out of proceedings under Chapter IX-A, U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, holding that the respondents had become adhivasis. The connected writ petition is directed against an order of the Board of Revenue staying the hearing of two second appeals.
(2.) SMT . Bhagwati, the predecessor of Kesho Ram appellant, held the land in dispute as her sir. She let it out to the res pondents on 14-2-1944 for five years on an annual rent of Rs. 264/- Soon after the expiry of the period of lease, she instituted a suit for ejectment of the respondents under Section 175/179, U. P. Tenancy Act. The erstwhile tenants contested the suit. They pleaded that they had paid Rs. 2,000/- to the plaintiff as a loan on the understanding that the loan would be set off against the rent of the land; and so they were entitled to remain in posses sion till the loan was discharged. They also pleaded that they had become here ditary tenants because the plaintiff paid more than Rs. 25/- per year as abwab. The trial Court held that the plaintiff paid less than Rs. 25/- per year as abwab. The defendants did not become hereditary ten ants. The suit was decreed for the eject ment of the defendants on 8-3-1949. The tenants went up in appeal. During its pendency the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act came into force, on 1st July, 1952. The tenants took a plea that they had become adhivasis under Sec. 20 (a) (i) of the Zamindari Abolition Act. The Additional Commissioner upheld this plea, and allowing the appeal, dismissed the suit for ejectment on 6th August, 1953. Smt. Bhagwani, the plaintiff, went up to the Board of Revenue in second Appeal. The Board of Revenue held that since the land-holder, namely the plaintiff, was a woman, the tenants became asamis under Section 21 (1) (h) read with Section 10 (2) (i) of the Zamindari Aboli tion Act. The Board, however, remanded the suit to the Additional Commissioner for deciding the appeal on the merits. After remand when the appeal came up for hear ing, it was urged on behalf of the' defen dants that plaintiff was not a disabled land-holder because her husband did not suffer from any physical infirmity. The plaintiff contended to the contrary. There being no evidence on this point, the Addi tional Commissioner remanded the case to the trial Court for decision, after allowing parties to lead evidence. In consequence of this order of remand dated 22nd March, 1955, the trial Court heard the matter and decreed the suit on 8th November, 1955. The defendants again filed an appeal. The Additional Commissioner held that the plaintiffs husband did not suffer from the relevant disqualifications and the plaintiff was not a disabled land-holder. The de fendants became adhivasis and as such were not liable to ejectment. He by his order dated llth July, 1956, reversed the decree and dismissed the suit.
(3.) NEARLY 10 years later Smt Bhagwani the plaintiff made an application for the setting aside of the appellate order dated llth July, 1956. This application was dismissed on 21-11-1966. The plain tiff, however, moved another application on 30th March, 1967, under Section 151, C. P. C. The Additional Commissioner held that in view of the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, the hearing of the appeal ought to have been stayed. On this ground he on 10-8-1967 recalled his order dated llth July, 1956, and de cided the appeal "in terms of the orders passed in consolidation proceedings." Against this order the defendants preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue. This appeal is still pending.;