JUDGMENT K.M. Dayal, J. - This is a defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit under Section 59 read with Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. 2. The trial court decreed the suit on 23rd March, 1965. The land was the agricultural land according to the finding of the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court decided the appeal on 11th March, 1967 and held that the defendants had become heridatory tenants of the land, as is apparent from the judgment of the lower appellate court. It was pointed out that Zamindari had been abolished and the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has been enforced in the city. The learned counsel for the appellate informs that Zamindari was abolished with effect from 1st July, 1965. Obviously, under Rule 4 Sub-rule (2) (v) framed under the said Act. The suit under Section 180 was liable to be stayed. Under Rule 5, suits were to be abated after giving notice to the parties. Under the circumstance, the court below was not justified in deciding the appeal on merits but it should have proceeded under Rules 4 and 5 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. None of the respondents put in appearance before this court. 3. In the result, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the court below to proceed against under Rules 4 and 5 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The record of the case may be sent down forthwith. The appeal is allowed as per observations made above and the case is remanded. However, there will be no order as to costs.