JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a revision against the judgment dated July 9, 1970 passed by Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division in appeal no. 497 of 1969 rejecting the appeal of the appellant and upholding the order of the trial court dated Sept. 17, 1969 in case no. 293 under section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The facts may be briefly stated here. The trial court had ordered the ejectment of the revisionist under Section 122-H, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. An appeal against his order was filed and the learned Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the order was not appealable. The learned Additional Commissioner also without considering the merits of the case refused to covert the appeal into a revision. A revision has not been filed against this order of the learned Additional Commissioner. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that its is settled view of this Court that memo of appeal can be converted as revision and vice-versa and that the impugned order of the learned Additional commissioner was in utter disregard of the settled view of the Board and was not tenable in the eyes of law. In support of his contention the learned counsel has referred to Murlidhar Agarwal v. Dy. Director Consolidation 1974 R.D., p.124, in which a learned Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held as follows: "It is well settled that the description given to a memorandum of appeal is not final and binding on the court. If a litigant being under an impression that a second appeal lies, files as second appeal, the court is not bound to treat it a second appeal. If is find that in law no second appeal lies, but in its place a revision, in such circumstances it is in the interest of justice fit and proper to convert the appeal into a revision and to hear and decide it as such. These are merely ministerial matters. In absence of a statutory prohibition, the authority possessing the power of deciding a revision, has, by implication, the power of effect the conversion memorandum of appeal into a revision, and then to hear and decide it as such. These are merely ministerial matters. In absence of a statutory prohibition, the authority possessing the power of deciding a revision, has, by implication, the power of effect the conversion memorandum of appeal into a revision, and then to hear and decide it as such. In our opinion, the Deputy Director was in error in holding that he had no jurisdiction to convert the second appeal into a revision. He ought to have permitted it and then to have decided the matter on merits." The learned counsel for the opposite party had not been able to show any thing to the contrary against the above view of the Hon'ble High Court. To my mind, the Hon'ble High Court has correctly laid down the principle that in the interest of justice it is fit and proper for an appellate court to convert an appeal into revision and to hear and decide it on merits even though the litigant has filed an appeal and not a revision. The learned Additional Commissioner has taken an erroneous view of law and has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him resulting in miscarriage of justice. 5. The result is that I hereby allow the revision, set aside the order of the learned Additional Commissioner and direct that he shall convert the appeal into a revision and thereafter hear and decide it on merits in accordance with law.