( 1 ) THESE are three connected applications under Article 226 of the Constitution. The prayer in each case is that the order of the Board of Revenue dated 30-8-1955 and the order of the additional Commissioner dated 4-7-1953 be quashed. The facts briefly stated are as follows :

( 2 ) TWO persons Mahudeo Prasad and Jagat Nandn were zemindars of about four annas share in a village and had certain sir and khudkasht lands. In 1921 they executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of one Ham Lal for a sum of Rs. 4999/ -. On 1-8-1931 they executed a second usufructuary mortgage in favour of four persons, Subedar Singh, Rajdeo Singh, Jamuna Singh and Alakhdeo Singh for a sum of Rs. 7000/-, Heaving sufficient amount in the hands of the mortgagees to redeem the earlier usufructuary mortgage and to enter into possession of the mortgage property. The second mortgagee redeemed the earlier mortgage and entered into possession. The rights of the mortgagors Mahadeo Prasad, and Jagat Narain came to vest in the present petitioner vindhyachal Tewari and his brother Bhiku Ram Tewari. In the year 1944 the petitioner and his brother filed an application under Section 12, Agriculturists Relief Act for the redemption of the usufructuary mortgage. The application was allowed, redemption was ordered on payment of a certain amount, which was ultimately paid and on 12-4-1945 the petitioner and his brother obtained possession of the mortgaged property.

( 3 ) DURING the subsistence of the mortgage, however the mortgagees had created three tenancies, one in favour of Narhada Rai, another in favour of Fauj-dar Singh and a third in favour of Saran. The first two were alleged to be relations of the mortgagees and the third their ploughman.

( 4 ) ON 23-6-1945 the petitioner, as Karta of the family consisting of himself and his brother, filed three suits under Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act for the ejectment of the mortgagees and the aforesaid tenants in the court of the Revenue Officer, Salem-pur. on 11-8-1949 the suit was decreed. The court held that the mortgagees were in actual possession and the names of the aforesaid tenants were fictitiously recorded in the revenue papers, and that they were, not real tenants and no tenancy had been created in their favour.

( 5 ) ON 16-8-1949 the petitioner obtained possession over the property in dispute in execution of the decree. Against the decree, the aforesaid tenants went up in appeal to the Commissioner.

( 6 ) DURING the pendency of the appeals, the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act came into force. Rule 5 of the Rules, framed under the Act, directed that certain suits and appeals which fell within the purview of Rule 4 were to be abated. Consequently on 24-12-1952, the Commissioner abated the appeals and the suits. The aforesaid tenants Narbada Rai, Faujdar Singh and the heirs of Saran then applied under Section 144, Civil p. C. for being restored to possession over the holdings. These applications were made in the court of the Judicial Officer, Salempur, in whose court the original suit under Section 180 had been instituted. Two applications were made on 10-1-1953 and the third one was made on 13-2-1953.

( 7 ) THE petitioner opposed these applications on the grounds that Section 144, Civil P. C. did not apply when a decree had been wiped out as a result of an abatement under Rule 5 of the Rules made under the Zarnindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and further that the tenant-applicants were not in possession and that the petitioner had not obtained possession from them in execution proceedings but had obtained possession from the mortgagees. A plea that Bhumidari rights had accrued to the petitioner under Section 18, Zarnindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and that, therefore, he was not liable to be ejected in those proceedings was also raised.

( 8 ) ON 9-1-1953 Judicial Officer dismissed the applications under Section 144, Civil P. C. His view was that, though Section 144, Civil P. C.