JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.2.1977 passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, allowing defendant's appeal No. 1 of 1977 district Jalaun against judgment and decrees dated 29.9.76 passed by Asstt. Collector Ist. Class Jalaun decreeing the plaintiff's suit under section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act in respect of the plot No. 1486 area 2.22 acres situated within the Municipal area Orai. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit against respondent for declaration to be hereditary tenant of the disputed plot which was in the possession of his father since 1936 on the basis of a Patta and after his death he had been in possession, that the defendant is fraudulently and wrongly entered since 1373F, That he had withdraw his earlier suit under section 229-B of Act I of 1951. 3. The suit was contested by B.N. Sexana, father of the present defendant, denying the plaint allegations claiming to be sirdar in possession; and that the suit was not maintainable under section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act which was repealed by Section 84 of the U.P. Urban Area Z.A. and L.R. Act. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. It was argued on behalf of the appellate that the disputed land was not demarcated as agricultural land under section 5 of U.P. Urban Area Z.A. and L.R Act and the notification under section 8 was not issued. Therefore U.P Tenancy Act was not abolished by section 84 of U.P. Urban Area Z.A. and L.R. Act regarding the disputed plot and the courts below come to a wrong finding. Reliance has been placed on 1969 R.D. page 79(H.C.). 6. In reply it was argued that Urban Areas has been defined by section 1 of Act 9 of 1951 and by section 84 of the Act U.P. Tenancy Act was repealed in its application to the urban areas defined in section of that Act. 7. Sections 8 and 84 of that Act run as follows and the urban areas have been defined under sections 1 and 2(15) of that Act. 7. Sections 8 and 84 of that Act run as follows and the urban areas have been defined under sections 1 and 2(15) of that Act. Section 8 Vesting of agricultural area in the State:- "After the agricultural area has been demarcated under Sec. 5, the State Government may, at any time, by notification in the official Gazette, declare that as from a date to be specified all such areas situate in the urban area shall vest in the State and, as from the beginning of the date so specified all such agricultural areas shall stand transferred to and vest except as hereinafter provided, in the State free from all encumbrances." Section 84, Applicability of U.P. Act No. XVII of 1939 and U.P. Act II of 1903:- "with effect from the date of vesting, the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, (and the Bhudelkhand Alienation of Land Act, 1903, shall be and are hereby repealed in their) application to the urban areas". The word used in section 84 is urban areas and not agricultural areas in urban areas. The date of vesting has been notified by notification No. 2901/1A-168-60 dated June 19, 1961 regarding Orai Municipal Board. By section 84 of the Act with effect from the date of the said notification U.P. Tenancy Act was repealed for the urban area of Orai demarcated under section 5 of that Act vested in the State of U.P. and stood transferred to the State free from all encumbrances and under Section 10 of that Act after the vesting consequences mentioned in that section in respect of such agricultural areas only, shall ensue. The U.P. Tenancy Act regarding the whole urban area within the limits of Municipal Board Orai Stood repealed except the areas in the schedule from the date of vesting and not only regarding agricultural area demarcated under section 5 and notified under section 8 of that Act. The ruling relied upon on behalf of the appellant has got no bearing on the point at issue. The ruling relied upon on behalf of the appellant has got no bearing on the point at issue. Therefore in my considered opinion from the date of notification the U.P. Tenancy Act stood repealed from the whole urban area of the Municipal Board Orai,hence the suit was not maintainable under section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and the appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed but the first appellate court ought to have rejected the plaint instead of having dismissed the suit. 8. In view of the above this appeal is dismissed with costs. The judgments and decree of the first appellate court is confirmed with the notification that instead of dismissing the suit is the plaint stands rejected.