M.L. Chaturvedi, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the judgments of the Board of Revenue dated 18th, 27th May, 1955 and 30th April 1956.
(2.) The relevant facts of the case are that one Jagannath who was the tenant of the plots in dispute, died sometime in 1947 leaving a widow Smt. Pran Devi, who succeeded to the tenancy rights of her husband. The petitioner was appointed a subtenant by Jagannath in 1943, and after the death of Jagannath he continued to be the sub-tenant of Smt. Pran Devi. Smt. Pran Devi surrendered her tenancy in favour of the land lord on 8th March, 1949, and the landlord then on the lst July 1949, let out the plots in dispute to respondents Nos. 3 to 9. These respondents, it appears, dispossessed the Petitioner from the plots, and on the 20th October 1949 the petitioner brought a suit under Section 183 of the U.P. Tenancy Act against the respondents claiming restoration to possession of the plots on the ground that he had been ejected therefrom otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of law. His case was that he was either the hereditary tenant or the sub-tenant of the plots in suit and was entitled to remain in possession of them because of the provisions of Section 295A of the U.P. Tenancy Act. This section was added by Section 26 of the U.P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act No. X of 1947, which came into force on the 14th June, 1947. According to the section any person who was a sub-tenant on the date of the commencement of Act No. X of 1947 was entitled to retain possession of his holding for a period of five years from the above date. The Respondents denied that the petitioner was a hereditary tenant or a sub-tenant of the plots and set up their own rights as hereditary tenants.
(3.) The first court held that the petitioner was a sub-tenant on the date of the commencement of U.P. Act No. X of 1947 and was entitled to continue in possession of the plots for five years from that date as a sub-tenant, and that he was ejected from the plots otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Tenancy Act. It accordingly decreed the suit for delivery of possession and declared that the petitioner would continue to be a sub-tenant of the plots in suit for a period of five years from the 14th June 1947. This decree was passed on the 25th May 1950, and the respondents' appeal against it was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on the 4th December 1950. The Petitioner obtained possession of the plots in February, 1951 in execution of the decree passed in his favour.;