JUDGMENT D.S. Misra, Member - This is an appeal filed by Ram Kewal and Ram Chandra against the judgement and decree dated January 28, 1976 passed by Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division in Appeal No. 839 of 1972. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Ram Pragat, Plaintiff-respondent, filed a suit under Section 209 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against Ram Adhar on the ground that Ram Adhar had taken forcible possession over the land in suit in July, 1971 and he be ejected therefrom. Later on he amended the plaint and added that he had given the land to Ram Adhar in lieu of Rs. 500/- borrowed from him. He tried to pay back the said money to Ram Adhar and asked that he should deliver back the possession but he refused to do so and hence he be ejected from the land in suit. The defendant's case on the other hand, was that an agreement had been arrived at between him and Ram Pragat for the sale of the said land for Rs. 750/- out of which a sum of Rs. 500/- was paid by him to Ram Pragat and it was agreed that on payment of the remaining amount a sale deed shall be executed after acquiring Bhumidhari rights. The trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that it was not covered within the provisions of Section 209, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The plaintiff preferred an appeal and the learned Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal holding that the defendant was a trespasser only and was liable to ejectment, on a suit under Section 209. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the suit was not maintainable under Section 209, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the plaintiff-respondent had no right to bring the suit for ejectment. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that even in the circumstances that the land was mortgaged by Ram Pragat to Ram Adhar, a suit under Section 209 was maintainable. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the parties. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that even in the circumstances that the land was mortgaged by Ram Pragat to Ram Adhar, a suit under Section 209 was maintainable. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the parties. Section 209 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act runs as follows: "209. (1) A person taking or retaining possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provision of the law for the time being in force, (a) Where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidhar of Asami without the consent of such Bhumidhar of Asami; (b) Where the land does not form part of the holding of a Bhumidhar or Asami without the consent of the Gaon Sabha, shall be liable to ejectment on the suit, in case referred to in clause (a) above of the Bhumidhar of Asami concerned, and in cases referred to in clause (b) above of Gaon Samaj and shall also be liable to pay damages." 7. It is an important ingredient of Section 109 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act that the land from which the ejectment is sought should form part of the holding of a Bhumidhar or Asami and the person who is sought to be ejected therefrom takes or retains possession of it without the consent of such Bhumidhar or Asami. In this case, even if the version of plaintiff-respondent is assumed to be true for arguments sake, it is clear therefrom that the possession of defendant was not that of a rank trespasser. The possession of the land was given to him by the land holder, namely the namely the plaintiff himself in lieu of rupees five hundred taken from the defendant and, therefore, it was a permissive possession. It is also a well settled principle of law that the nature of possession does not change. If it started as a permissive possession it shall remain a permissive possession and, therefore. I find force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that the suit under Section 209 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for ejectment of the appellants, who are the sons of Ram Adhar, was not maintainable under Section 209 of the Act. I find force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that the suit under Section 209 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for ejectment of the appellants, who are the sons of Ram Adhar, was not maintainable under Section 209 of the Act. In the year 1965 the Board of Revenue in an appeal No. 2(z) of 1965-66 before it filed by Harnam against Hari Nath has held that the defendant who was occupying land with the consent of the land holder was not liable to ejectment as trespasser under Section 209. This decision has been reported in 1965 R.D. 355. 8. A similar view was held by Hon'ble Justice O.P. Trivedi in Writ Petition No. 514 of 1969 Guru Charan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others 1974 R.D. 382. In the said case it was held by the learned judge that if a person was allowed to cultivate a land with the consent of tenure holder, a suit under Section 209 for his ejectment was not maintainable. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, placed his reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court. Allahabad, which was passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 347 of 1968, in Khacher Mal v. Board of Revenue and others 1969 R.D. 200. In that case it was held that the person claiming through the original transfer or could bring a suit under Section 209 against the transferee upon fulfilling his obligations flowing from the original transaction between the parties. But this is not the only aspect of the non-maintainability of the suit. In that case it was held that the person claiming through the original transfer or could bring a suit under Section 209 against the transferee upon fulfilling his obligations flowing from the original transaction between the parties. But this is not the only aspect of the non-maintainability of the suit. The transfer of the land by Ram Pragat to Ram Adhar in lieu of rupees five hundred borrowed from him was an illegal transfer because a Sirdar could not transfer unless the case case covered by the exception of Section 156 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or it was in accordance with the provisions of Section 157 of the said Act which runs as follows: "157(1) A Bhumidhar or an Asami holding the land in lieu of maintenance allowance under Section 11 who is- (a) an unmarried woman, or if married divorced or separated from her husband or whose husband suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in Clause (c) or (d), or a widow; (b) a minor whose father suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in clauses (c) or (d) or has died, and (c) a lunatic or an idiot: (d) a person incapable of cultivating by reason of blindness, or other physical infirmity: (e) prosecuting studies in a recognised educational institution and does not exceed 25 years in age and whose father suffers from any of the disqualification mentioned in clauses (c) or (d) or has died: (f) in the Military, Naval or Air service of the Indian Dominion, or (g) under detention or imprisonment: may let the whole or any part of his holding; Provided that in the case of holding held jointly by more persons than one, but one or more of them but not all are subject to the disabilities mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) the persons or persons may let out his or their share in the holding." The said transfer was, therefore, a void transfer within the meaning of Section 156 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act which runs as follows:- "156(1) No Bhumidhar or Asami shall let for any period whatsoever any land comprised in his holding except:- (a) in the cases provided for in Section 157, or (b) to a recognised educational institution for a purpose connected with instruction in agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry. (2) In this Chapter the word 'lease' and its cognate expressions have the meaning assigned to them in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (IV of 1882)." and, therefore, the consequences of the void transfer were bound to follow as incorporated in Section 190(cc) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, namely, when the holding or part thereof has been let out or used in contravention of the provisions of the Act, the interest of the tenureholder stood extinguished within sub-clause (cc) of Section 190 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and in view of it also he had no right to bring a suit under Section 209 of the Act against the defendant-appellants. As a matter of fact both the original tenure holder and the transferee, were liable to ejectment from the land in suit as it vested in the State Government within the meaning of Section 163 read with Section 167 of the U.P. Z.A and L.R. Act. 10. I, on the above considerations, find that the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner was not according to law. It, is, therefore, set aside and the judgement and decree of the trial court is restored.