JUDGMENT Mootham, C.J. - This is a petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution in which the Petitioners challenge the validity of an order of the Board of Revenue dated 27-10-1956. 2. The relevant facts can be stated very shortly. On 5-7-1948 the Petitioners were declared to be sub-tenants of four plots of land by an order made under the proviso to sub-S.(3) of S. 27 of the UP Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947, and they were therefore not liable to be ejected from those plots for a period of three years. On 24-9-1952, a suit was brought by Trilok, since deceased, the father of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, and by Respondents 4 and 5 against the Petitioners for their ejectment from the four plots in suit. This suit was filed u/s 202, Cl. (b), of the UP ZA and LR Act, 1950, on the ground that the Petitioners were asamis and were liable to ejectment. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that it was filed after the expiry of the period of limitation for such suits and this order was upheld by the Addl. Commr. in appeal. The Respondent then filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue which by its order dated 27-10-1956, allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the two lower courts and remanded the suit to the trial court for hearing. It is now argued that the order of the Board in which it held the suit to have been filed within the prescribed period is wrong in law and should be quashed. 3. R. 338 of the ZA and LR Rules, 1952, provides that all suits, applications and other proceedings specified in Appendix III there-to shall be instituted within the time specified therein, and item No. 25 (ii) in that Appendix as it stood on 24-9-1952, read thus. Serial number Section of the Act Description of suit, application and other proceeding Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run Paper court Fees 1 2 3 4 5 6 25 (ii) 202(b) read Suit with section 133 (a) (i) (ii) and (iii). forejectment of asamis. One year. From the date on which the cause of action arose u/S. 202(b). Fifteen annas 4. forejectment of asamis. One year. From the date on which the cause of action arose u/S. 202(b). Fifteen annas 4. Under this entry the period of limitation is to run from the date upon which the cause of action arose u/s 202 (b), and Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the two lower courts were right in holding that the cause of action arose on 5-7-1951, the date upon which the period of three years for which the Petitioners were declared to be sub-tenants expired, and that, therefore, a suit against them u/s 202 (b) would be barred by limitation if filed after the expiry of one year from that date. The Board of Revenue has held that the period of one year runs from 1-7-1952, the date upon which the vesting order was made u/s 4 of the ZA and LR. Act. The Board does not give its reasons for this view, but in our opinion it is a correct view to take. The suit was one filed u/s 202 of the Act, that is to say, it is a suit which is for the ejectment of an asami. An asami is one of a class of the tenure holders which was created by Ch. VIII of the ZA and LR Act and which came into being on the making of the vesting order under the Act. That order was made on 1-7-1952, and the Petitioners did not become asamis, and consequently were not liable to he sued as such, until 1-7-1952. The fact that they had acquired the status of asamis was an essential part of the cause of action, for unless they were asamis the suit was bound to fail. A cause of action u/s 202 could not arise before the Petitioners had become asamis, and accordingly we are of opinion that the Board was right that the period of limitation in the present case commenced on 1-7-1952. The suit was filed on 24-9-1952, and was therefore, within time. We are of opinion therefore that this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.