MEHROTRA, J.:- This is an application under Art.226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari be issued to the opposite party quashing the order of the Board of Revenue dated 2-2-1954. It is necessary to give certain facts in order to appreciate the grounds raised in the petition. Lala Ram Kishore, who is opposite party No.5 to the present petition, was a zamindar and landholder of the disputed plots, mentioned in the petition, and Karan Singh, father of opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 in the present petition, was the hereditary tenant of the said plots.

2. A suit was brought by Ram Kishore against Karan Singh under S.163, U.P. Tenancy Act, for arrears of rent in respect of the disputed plots. In the said proceedings, it was found that Karan Singh had not paid the rent and therefore he was ordered to be ejected u/s.165 on 1-6-1942. Possession was obtained by Ram Kishore over the plots in pursuance of the aforesaid order. After obtaining possession Ram Kishore let out the land to the applicant Chaudhary Kishan Singh. After the coming into force of the U.P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947, the opposite parties 2 to 4 to the present petition made an application u/s.27 of the said Act on 9-10-1947 for recovery of possession on the ground that the arrears of rent for which the father of the applicant who died on 1-1-1943, had paid to the zamindar outside the Court and two receipts dated 25-8-1941 and 1-1-1943 had been granted by the zamindar.

The petition was contested by the present applicant who alleged that the receipts produced by the opposite parties had been fraudulently issued by the zamindar to them subsequently and they were fictitious. In effect, the contention of the petitioner in those proceedings was that the alleged payment to the zamindar by the applicant was fictitious. The Tahsildar by his order, dated 21-9-1948, allowed the application u/s.27 and ordered the reinstatement of the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4, holding that the rent receipts filed by opposite parties 2 to 4 were genuine and the alleged payment to the zamindar by the tenant has been established.

3. It will be significant to note that the zamindar who was produced in the case admitted that the arrears of rent had been received by him. An appeal was filed by the present applicant against the aforesaid order of the Tahsildar before the Collector and the Assistant Collector, first class, on 31-12-1949, allowed the appeal and dismissed the application holding that the rent receipts filed by the opposite parties 2 to 4 were fictitious and the payment of the arrears of rent alleged by them has not been consequently established.

The receipts were obtained in collusion with the zamindar. Against the aforesaid order of the Assistant Collector a revision was filed by the opposite parties 2 to 4 before the Commissioner.

4. It may be pointed out at this stage that the power of revision under the Tenancy Act is given to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has, however, framed certain rules of procedure under which a revision has to be filed before the Commissioner. Paragraphs 183 and onwards of the Board of Revenue Manual lay down the procedure prescribed in such cases. The Commissioner is given power to reject summarily an application for revision.

In case he finds that there is some ground for interference in revision, the Commissioner has to submit his report to the Board of Revenue and the party aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner is given powers to object to the report. Thereafter, the Board of Revenue hears the parties and either accepts or rejects the report submitted by the Commissioner. Whatever may be the position of these rules framed by the Board of Revenue, mentioned above, the ultimate order passed by the Board of Revenue is one under S.275, U.P. Tenancy Act.

5. In the present case the Commissioner, Aligarh cum Agra Division before whom the revision had been filed on behalf of the opposite parties 2 to 4 by his order dated 13-4-