K.N. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellants challenging the orders of the Revenue Courts decreeing the Respondents' suit for Appellants' ejectment under Section 209 of the U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 1957 Act).
(2.) THE admitted facts which emerge from the findings of the court below, are that plots Nos. 868 and 869 situate in Qasba Roorkee district Saharanpur was under the hereditary tenancy of Pancham Singh. On 10th August 1959 Pancham Singh executed a registered lease -deed in favour of Narain Das predecessor -in interest of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 letting out the said two plots to Narain Das for a period of five years. Narain Das obtained possession over the plots in dispute. Later on, Pancham Singh filed a civil suit in the court of Munsif for the cancellation of the lease -deed as well as for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining Narain Das from interfering with his possession over the plot in suit. Narain Das resisted the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit. The findings of the trial court were affirmed by the first appellate court as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. During the period of the aforesaid litigation, proceedings under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure were taken and the crops standing on the land in dispute were attached under a preliminary order issued by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate on May 12, 1961. Those proceedings terminated in favour of the Appellants and possession of the crops was handed over to the Appellants on 4th August 1961. On 17th December 1963, Narain Das filed a suit under Section 209 of the 1957 Act against the Appellants for their ejectment from the plots in dispute on the pleadings that under Section 18(2) of the 1957 Act he had acquired Sirdari rights and he was entitled to regain possession from the Appellants whose possession was otherwise than in accordance with law. The suit was resisted by the Appellants who claimed that they had acquired Sirdari rights under Section 18(1) of the 1957 Act and their possession over the plots in dispute was not otherwise than in accordance with law. The trial court decreed the Respondent's suit and passed a decree for ejectment against the Appellants. On appeal, the Commissioner as well as as the Board of Revenue, affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. Thereafter, the Appellants filed a writ petition in this Court challenging orders of the revenue courts, under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Hence, this appeal. Sri G.N. Verma, learned Counsel for the Appellants, urged that since Pancham Singh, the predecessor -in -interest of the Appellants, was hereditary tenant of the plots in question on the date of vesting, he acquired Sirdari rights under Section 18(1) of the 1957 Act, and the Appellants who were the successors of Pancham Singh were entitled to retain possession, the Respondent's suit under Section 209 was not maintainable. We find no merit in the contention.
(3.) SECTION 18 is in the following words: * * * * * Section 18 conferred sirdari rights on certain class of persons. Sub -section (1) conferred sirdari rights on a person holding agricultural land immediately preceding the date of vesting as a tenant, or holding on special terms in Avadh, an ex -proprietory tenant, an occupancy tenant, a hereditary tenant, a grantee at favourable rate of rent, a non -occupancy tenant and sub -tenant (as contemplated by Sub -section (4) of Section 47 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act 1939). The Sirdari right so conferred is subject to the provisions of Section 19 of the Act and the right to take or retain possession of the land is subject to the provisions of the Act. Sub -section (2) confers Sirdari right on a tenant of Sir and a sub -tenant of land other than grove land, it lays down that every person who, on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting, was or has been deemed to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act, a tenant of Sir, or a sub -tenant other than a sub -tenant as contemplated by the proviso to Sub -section (3) of Section 27 of the U.P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947, is entitled to the right of a Sirdar. The sub -section further confers additional rights to take or retain possession of the land of which he may be sub -tenant on the date of vesting, and the land shall be deemed to be settled with these two class of persons by the State Government. Thus Sub -section (2) conferred Sirdari rights on the sub tenants of Sir and other land (except the grove land) and authorised them to take and retain possession of the land and by a legal fiction, the land shall be deemed to be settled by the State Government with them.;