JUDGMENT S. Mubarak Hasan, M. - This is a second appeal against judgment and decree dated August 23, 1968 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur in appeal against the judgment and decree dated October 23, 1967 passed by S.D.O., Hata at Kasia district Deoria in a case under section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. Thagai and 3 others filed suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for a a declaration that they were Sirdars of plot 1206/43 of village Kathiadhir, Tahsil and District Deoria. They alleged that the land in suit had been mortgaged with them by the defendant before the date of vesting but the mortgage was redeemed by him the defendant in 1360 Fasli. They further alleged that instead of taking back possession of the mortgaged land Katwaru defendant made fresh arrangement with that (Plaintiffs) and created a sort of sub-tenancy in their favour. They pleaded that they became Sirdars of the disputed land by operation of law and had been continuing in possession throughout. Matru defendant filed admission. Katwaru defendant No. 1 filed written statement denying the right and title of the plaintiffs in the disputed land. He pleaded that he had filed a suit for redemption but withdrew it subsequently. He also pleaded that the plaintiffs never came in possession as sub-tenants but their possession was in the capacity of licensee. 3. On October 23, 1967, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit holding that the mortgage was not redeemed and that the possession of the plaintiff was in the capacity of licensees only. 4. On August 23, 1968, the lower appellate court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal holding that the mortgage was not redeemed and and that the plaintiffs were in possession as licensees only. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the present defendant Katwaru had filed a suit under section 202 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the present plaintiffs but he withdrew that suit on March 18, 1953. He contended that the mere filing of the suit under Section 202 was tantamount to the revocation of licence. He further argued that the plaintiffs having continued in possession acquired Sirdari rights in the land in dispute by operation of law long before the institution of the present suit. He contended that the mere filing of the suit under Section 202 was tantamount to the revocation of licence. He further argued that the plaintiffs having continued in possession acquired Sirdari rights in the land in dispute by operation of law long before the institution of the present suit. He placed reliance on the Full Bench case Balwant v. Dy. Dir. of Consolidation 1975 R.D. 107 in which it was held that:- "Held: (Per Majority) - (1) the possession of the mortgagee where rights have extinguished under Section 14(1) of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on or after the date of vesting is not per se adverse but is permissive. (2) The period of limitation for a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act would commence to run not from the date of vesting but from the date of demand for possession." In view of the above circumstances he contended that the trial court wrongly dismissed the plaintiffs suit and the lower appellate court erred in affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the licence will not be deemed to have been revoked by the mere filing of the suit under section 202 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act by the present defendant against the present plaintiffs. He contended that the plaintiffs were only licensees of the disputed land and that they failed to acquire Sirdari rights in the same. No other point has been argued before me by the learned counsels of the parties. 7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels of the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly the possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed land started as mortgagees before the Zamindari Abolition. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings that the mortgage was not redeemed. I have no reason to disagree with the concurrent findings of the courts below in this regard. This fact is also not disputed by the learned counsel of the parties now. After the Zamindari Abolition the status of the plaintiffs mortgagees in possession was that of licensees only. Admittedly the present defendant had filed a suit under Section 202 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the present plaintiffs but he withdrew it on March 18, 1953. This fact is also not disputed by the learned counsel of the parties now. After the Zamindari Abolition the status of the plaintiffs mortgagees in possession was that of licensees only. Admittedly the present defendant had filed a suit under Section 202 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the present plaintiffs but he withdrew it on March 18, 1953. Section 202 contemplates ejectment of an Asami and not a trespasser of licensee. The mere filing of the suit under section 202 was not tantamount to the revocation of licence and the period of limitation did not start running from the date when that suit was filed. The position would have been different if the defendant had filed suit under section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The ruling cited by the learned counsel for the appellants relates to a case under section 209. It has, therefore, no application to the present case. The plaintiffs are licensees only. They failed to acquire Sirdari rights in the disputed land. The orders passed by the courts below are correct. There is no illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court. Appeal has no force. It is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.