ORDER Mahesh Chandra, J. - This is an application of the Defendant Appellants praying that the appeal along with the suit be ordered to have abated. Suit No. 690 of 1956 was filed in the court of the City Munsif Meerut for recovery of possession of plot No. 5199 (old) corresponding to plot No. 4635 (new), area 1 Bigha 2 Biswas, of Kothi Babbu wali in the town of Meerut and for recovery of damages for use and occupation and also for rendition of accounts. The land belonged to Lala Nanak Chand Trust. The management committee of the trust leased out the plot to Shri Bateshwar Dayal, for a period of 30 years, commencing from 1-7-1926, under a deed dated 23-6-1926 for the purpose of planting a grove, erecting buildings, digging wells etc. According to the Plaintiff Respondents the period expired, but Sri Bateshwar Dayal did not surrender the land and failed to abide by the terms of the lease inasmuch as he neither erected any building nor dug a well, nor planted a grove and allowed it to be used as a tonga and lorry stand without obtaining the lessor's consent and has been earning huge profits of the same inspite of the fact that he was a member of the Trust until 10-6-1926. It was further alleged that the period of the lease expired and the Respondent did not surrender the land. It was also alleged that Sri Bateshwar Dayal had made undue profit from the Trust Property inspite of being a member of the Trust Committee and was consequently liable to render accounts of profits earned by him during the period of his membership. 2. The suit was contested by the Appellants and was dismissed by the trial court on 24-10-1958. On appeal the learned Civil Judge Meerut decreed the suit for ejectment of the Appellants and for damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 12.50 per annum from 1-7-1956 onwards till the date of actual possession. The first appellate court dismissed the rest of the claim. 3. In this second appeal, execution of the decree and the delivery of possession had been stayed till the disposal of the appeal. 4. 12.50 per annum from 1-7-1956 onwards till the date of actual possession. The first appellate court dismissed the rest of the claim. 3. In this second appeal, execution of the decree and the delivery of possession had been stayed till the disposal of the appeal. 4. The Appellants have filed this application for abatement of both the suit and the appeal on the ground that under UP Urban Areas ZA and LR Act 1956, which came into force with effect from 12-3-1957, alleging that the land in dispute had been demarcated as an agricultural area and shown as grove in U.A. from No. 3 prepared under the provisions of the Act and that a notification dated 16-6-1964 had been published in the UP Gazette u/s 8 of the Act vesting the area in the State of UP. The Appellants alleged that after the publication of the aforesaid notification all interest and title of the Plaintiff vested in the State of UP and the Trust ceased to have been the power of the land in suit and the Appellants became Bhumidhars u/s 17 of the Act. They further alleged that they had deposited ten times of the annual rent in the sub treasury Meerut on 10-5-1965 for the issue of the Bhumidhari Sanad and acquired the rights of a Bhumidhar. According to them because of the Act and the rules framed thereunder the suit and the appeal both abated. 5. The UP Urban Areas ZA Act 1956 applies to agricultural areas situated in Urban Areas of UP Section 2(1) of the Act defines agricultural area and the relevant portion of the definition runs as follows: 2(1) "agricultural area" as respect any urban area means an area which, with reference to such date as the State Government may notify in that behalf is--(a)...(b)...(c) included in the holding of--(i)...(ii)...(iii)...(iv)...(v)...(vi)...(vii)...(viii) a grove-holder (ix)...(x)...and is used by the holder thereof for purposes of agriculture or horticulture. Section 17 of the Act which provides for settlement of certain lands with intermediaries or cultivators as Bhumidhars also provides that subject to the provisions of Section 16 and 18 all lands in an agricultural area held by a grove-holder on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting shall be deemed to be settled by the State Government with such intermediary, lessee, tenant, grantee or grove-holder as the case may be, who shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to take or retain possession as a Bhumidhar thereof. It has been held by the trial court as well as the first appellate court that the land was let out. In fact, it was not disputed before the first appellate court that the land bore the character of a grove and was let out for the purpose of planting a grove. The first appellate court agreed with the trial court that Pt. Bateshwar Dayal Sharma had planted a grove in the early years of the lease. Pt. Bateshwar Dayal was then a grove-holder and the land in dispute an agricultural area. u/s 3(1) of the UAZA and LR Act the State Government has the power, to order demarcation of an agricultural area and to direct by a notification in the Official Gazette that the agricultural area situated in urban areas may be demarcated. Under Sub-section (2) the Demarcation Officer is then to make enquiries and determine and demarcate agricultural areas within the urban areas and to submit his proposals u/s 4(1) of the Act to the Commissioner who may make such modifications therein as he may consider necessary. After the Commissioner has considered the said proposal he has to publish u/s 4(2) a notice in the prescribed form in the Gazette and in such other manner as may be prescribed to the effect that the proposals as regards the demarcation of agricultural areas have been formulated and are open to inspection at the places to be specified in the said notice. Within three months thereof any person or local authority interested has Under Sub-section (3) of Section 4 the right to file an objection to the proposals. After the expiry of three months of the date of publication of the notice, the Commissioner is to proceed u/s 5(1) of the Act to decide objections in the manner prescribed and then to finally demarcate the agricultural Area. After the expiry of three months of the date of publication of the notice, the Commissioner is to proceed u/s 5(1) of the Act to decide objections in the manner prescribed and then to finally demarcate the agricultural Area. After demarcation, he shall publish a notice in the Gazette Under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 to the effect that the agricultural are as have been finally demarcated and their details are open to inspection at places to be specified in that notice. The appeal against that order to the Board of Revenue has been provided for. u/s 6 the Commissioner himself has the power to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the demarcation proceedings. Section 7 provides revision of record of rights. Section 8 thereafter runs as follows: 8. After the agricultural area has been demarcated u/s 5, the State Government may, at any time, by notification in the Official Gazatte, declare that, as from a date to be specified all such areas situate in the urban area shall vest in the State and as from the beginning of the date so specified all such agricultural areas shall stand transferred to and vest except as hereinafter provided, in the State, free from all encumbrances. This notification u/s 8 has been made in the Official Gazette--vide copy of the notification appended to the affidavit of the Appellant. Section 10 of the Act provides that where the notification u/s 8 has been published in the Official Gazette certain consequences will ensue in respect of such area from the beginning of the date of vesting. Under Clause (i) of Section 10 one consequence is that all suits and proceedings of the nature to be prescribed pending in any Court at the date of vesting and all proceedings upon any decree or order passed in any such suit or proceedings previous to the date of vesting shall be stayed. 'Prescribed' naturally means prescribed by rules. Section 86 of the Act provides for the framing of rules by the State Government. Under Sub-section (2) Clause (vii) of the Act, rules can be made by the State Government for the disposal of suits and proceedings stayed under this Act. Rule 38(v) made under the Act provides that suits, applications and proceedings including appeals, references and revisions u/s 180 of the UP Tenancy Act 1939 or of similar nature, pending in a civil court, shall be stayed. Rule 38(v) made under the Act provides that suits, applications and proceedings including appeals, references and revisions u/s 180 of the UP Tenancy Act 1939 or of similar nature, pending in a civil court, shall be stayed. The only exception is of the land where the Plaintiff is a tenant or where the land was the Sir, Khudkasht or grove of an intermediary, in which rights have not accrued to the Defendant u/s 17, or any other section of the UP UAZA and LR Act. The land in question is neither Sir nor Khudkasht nor the grove of an intermediary. It has been found by the court below, that the intermediary had let out the land to the Appellant's predecessor in interest for the planting of a grove and the grove had been planted. So it was not the grove of an intermediary. Rule 38(v) will therefore fully apply to the land in question. The Applicant's affidavit shows that it has been demarcated an agricultural area. Under Rule 39 every suit or proceeding...whether pending in the court of first instance or in appeal or in revision stayed Under Clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (v) and (viii) of Rule 38, shall together with appeal or revision, if any be abated by the court or authority before whom it may be pending, after notice to parties and giving them an opportunity of being heard. The suit and the appeal are therefore liable to abatement. The Respondents had an opportunity of being heard and even filed a counter affidavit, but it mentioned that they have made an application u/s 6 of the Act. They were given time to file an order of the Commissioner, if any passed on their application. No copy of the order has been filed. That counter affidavit is not now, pressed. Consequently, there is nothing on the record to show whether the application alleged to have been made by them u/s 6 of the Act satisfies the requirements of that section. Moreover, the abatement is only subject to the publication of the notification u/s 8 and the notification u/s 8 subsists. That application is therefore allowed and the suit and the appeal both shall abate.