JUDGMENT G.C. Mathur, J. - There was a dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 to 7 with regard to a number of plots in consolidation proceedings but the dispute in this writ petition is confined to two plots only, namely, plots Nos. 124112 and 40211. The Settlement Officer Consolidation found that the petitioner was an asami under Section 21 (h) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act of one Srimati Reshma who was the disabled sirdar of these plots that, upon the death of Srimati Reshma, the petitioner as well as respondents Nos. 4 to 7 succeeded her as sirdars of the plots and that, since no suit under Section 202 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed within the period of limitation, the petitioner had acquired exclusive sirdari rights in these two plots. He has further held that there was no merger of the petitioner's interest as asami by virtue of his becoming one of the landholders of the plots by succession. Against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in respect of these two plots, respondents Nos. 4 to 6 went up in revision. The Director of Consolidation did not upset the findings of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) that the petitioner was an asami under Section 21 (h) and that there was no merger of his interest as asami when he became one of the landholders. The Director has held that there was no question of assertion of adverse rights as the possession of the petitioner could be deemed to be possession of the other co-sirdars. He has accordingly reversed the decision of the settlement officer (Consolidation) in respect of these two plots and has held that the parties are joint sirdars of these plots. The order of the Director in this regard is challenged in this writ petition. 2. It is clear from the facts of this case that the petitioner became an asami under Section 21 (h) of Srimati Reshma. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has contended that the petitioner's interest as asami was extinguished by his becoming one of the landholders as there was a merger of the two interests. 2. It is clear from the facts of this case that the petitioner became an asami under Section 21 (h) of Srimati Reshma. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has contended that the petitioner's interest as asami was extinguished by his becoming one of the landholders as there was a merger of the two interests. The question of merger is governed by Section 192 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act which provides :- "192-The interest of an asami in his holding or part thereof shall determine when his interest and the interest of the bhumidhars or sirdars in the whole of the holding or such part, as the case may be, become vested in one person in the same right." 3. Under this section, there can be no merger unless the interests of the asami and of the landholders vest in one and the same person. In the case before me, the interest of the asami vested in the petitioner alone while interest of the landholders vested in the petitioner together with respondents Nos. 4 to 7. It therefore, cannot be said that both the interests of the asami and of the landholders vest in the same person. The view taken by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) that there was no merger appears to be correct. There being no merger, the petitioner continued to be the asami of these two plots. The question now arises whether he acquired exclusive sirdari rights on account of the facts and the landholders did not file a suit under Section 202 within the period of limitation prescribed. Admittedly, the case is governed by clause (f) of Section 202 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Section 202 (f) reads thus :- "202-Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 338, an asami shall be liable to ejectment from his holding on the suit of the Gaon Sabha or the landholder, as the case may be on the ground or grounds :- .......................... (f) that he belongs to the class mentioned in clause (h) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 21 or clause (b) of Section 133 and that- (i) the landholder wishes to bring the land under his personal cultivation and in cases where the lease is for a fixed term, such term has expired, or (ii) the disability has determined". 4. (f) that he belongs to the class mentioned in clause (h) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 21 or clause (b) of Section 133 and that- (i) the landholder wishes to bring the land under his personal cultivation and in cases where the lease is for a fixed term, such term has expired, or (ii) the disability has determined". 4. The settlement officer (Consolidation) held that on the death of Srimati Reshma, the disability ceased and thereafter the suit had to be filed within the period of limitation of three years under sub-clause (ii) of clause (f) . The contention of the contesting respondents is that the suit would lie under sub-clause (i) of clause (f) for which no period of limitation is prescribed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of a single Judge of this Court in Kamta Prasad v. Board of Revenue, U. P. Alld., 1962 RD 265 This case fully supports the contention of learned counsel. The facts of that case were almost identical to the facts of the present case and it was held that the disability ceased upon the death of the disabled tenure-holder and that his successors, who were not disabled persons, could file a suit for eviction of asami only under sub-clause (ii) of clause (1) of Section 202. The same view has been taken by the Board of Revenue in Bir Jawal v. Mehtu Ahir, 1957 ALJ (Rev.) 23. No decision either of the Board of Revenue or of this Court taking a contrary view has been brought to my notice. I see no reason to differ from the view taken by this Court and by the Board of Revenue in this matter. It, therefore, appears that since no suit was filed by the landholder for the eviction of the petitioner from the plots in dispute within three years of the death of Srimati Reshma the petitioner acquired rights of a Sirdar in these plots under Section 204. The decision of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in regard to these plots is correct and the decision of the Director of the Consolidation is manifestly erroneous in law. 5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order of the Director of Consolidation dated January 4, 1967 is quashed in so far as it relates to plots Nos. 124112, and 40211. Parties will bear their own costs of this petition.