JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. - This writ petition is directed against the orders passed by opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 in appeal and revision arising out of proceedings u/s 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 2. Dispute in the present case relates to land of Khata No. 179 situated in village Dandupur, Pargana and Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh. In the basic year Khatauni, the names of Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were recorded. Opposite Parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed objection u/s 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming co-tenancy rights along with the Petitioners with the allegation that the land in dispute belonged to Ami Mohammad, the common ancestor who had two daughters ; Hakimunnisan and Habibunnisan. Petitioner No. 1 is son of Habibunnisan and Petitioner No. 2 is her grand-son. Opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the daughter's sons of Hakimunnisan. The pedigree mentioned in para 3 of the writ petition is not disputed. The Petitioners contested the claim of opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 asserting that after death of Ami Mohammad, the land in dispute was settled with their mother Habibunnisan and her name was also recorded as sole-tenant and she remained in exclusive possession and after her death the Petitioners continued in possession. They asserted that opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are not co-tenure holders nor they have ever been in possession over the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer, after taking evidence of parties dismissed the objection by order dated 15-5-1976 holding that after death of Ami Mohammad his both daughters Hakimunnisan and Habibunnisan inherited the land in dispute and when Hakimunnisan died Habibunnisan was alive and as such she, being sister, she inherited the interest of the deceased sister in the holding in question and the Petitioners are the sole tenure holders. Aggrieved by this order, appeal was preferred by opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and and 3 which was allowed by Assistant Settlement Officer, Conoslidation by order dated 20-12-1978 and it was held that Hakimunnisan and Habibunnisan were tenure holders of the land in dispute and both were in possession. For recording the finding on the material question of possession, statement of Ibraheem husband of Habibunnisan was relied upon, who had deposed that both the sisters were in possession and after death of Hakimunnisan her daughter's sons are in possession. For recording the finding on the material question of possession, statement of Ibraheem husband of Habibunnisan was relied upon, who had deposed that both the sisters were in possession and after death of Hakimunnisan her daughter's sons are in possession. The Petitioners and opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were thus held to be co-tenure holders in the land in dispute. Against the said order, Petitioners preferred revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 16-9-1981 and the findings recorded by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, was confirmed. The Petitioners have challenged these orders passed by the opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 in the present writ petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that after death of Hakimunnisan, succession in the case will be governed by provisions of Section 172 read with Section 171(2) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and Habibunnisan, who was alive at the time of the death of Hakimunnisan inherited her interest in the land in dispute being sister. I am unable to agree with this contention. Statutory tenancy in holding under Oudh Rent Act was not heritable. Heirs of statutory tenants were entitled to remain in occupation for a period of five years from the date of the tenant's death at the rent payable by the deceased but they were not entitled to renewal of the tenancy. This is apparent from the provisions contained u/s 48 of Oudh Rent Act which provides as under: 48(1). When a statutory tenant dies, his heir shall be entitled to retain occupation of the holding at the rent payable by the deceased for a period of five years from the date of the tenant's death and to receive compensation under the provisions of this Act for improvements, if any, made on the holding by his predecessor in interest, but shall not be entitled to renewal of the tenancy. (Emphasis supplied) 4. In view of said provision it is clear that the heirs of the statutory tenant were only entitled to remain in occupation for a period of five years, but they were not entitled to renewal of tenancy. After expiry of said statutory period, it was f or the landlord to settle the land in question with the heirs or with one of them or to resume the land and settle it afresh with some other person. After expiry of said statutory period, it was f or the landlord to settle the land in question with the heirs or with one of them or to resume the land and settle it afresh with some other person. In case the heirs in occupation were not ejected within a period of three years after expiry of the statutory period of five years, they became statutory tenants themselves as is evident from the provisions contained in Section 3 Sub-section (18) of the Oudh Rent Act, which defines the term 'statutory tenant and reads as follows: (18) A person who succeeds as an heir of a statutory tenant u/s 48 shall not be deemed to be a statutory tenant unless he has obtained a patta from the landlord or has remained in occupation of the holding for three years after the expiration of the period for which he is entitled to retain occupation of the holding u/s 48: Provided that when a holding is held by two or more co-tenants, no person who succeeds as an heir of any such co-tenant u/s 48 shall be deemed to be a statutory tenant of the holding unless he has obtained a patta from the landlord, or has remained in occupation of the holding for three years after expiration of the period of or which the heir of the last surviving co-tenant is entitled to retain occupation of the holding u/s 48. (Emphasis supplied) 5. The words "shall not be deemed to be statutory tenant" contained in Sub-section (18) of Section 3 of Oudh Rent Act make it clear that the statutory tenancy is not heritable and it cannot be acquired by inheritance. The heirs of statutory tenant were not to be deemed to be statutory tenants unless they have obtained patta from the landlord or have remained in occupation of the holding for three years after expiry of period of five years during which they were entitled to retain occupation of holding u/s 48. The heirs of statutory tenant were not to be deemed to be statutory tenants unless they have obtained patta from the landlord or have remained in occupation of the holding for three years after expiry of period of five years during which they were entitled to retain occupation of holding u/s 48. It is, thus, clear that if the heir or heirs of statutory tenant acquired statutory right under the provisions of Sub-section (18) of Section 3 of the Oudh Rent Act, on acquiring a patta from the landlord or on remaining in occupation of the land for a period of eight years, as the case may be, he or they shall be deemed to be statutory tenants in his or their own right although the holding in question originally belonged to their predecessor in interest. Thus having acquired statutory rights themselves in the manner stated above, they cannot be said to have inherited the holding of last male tenant so as to attract provisions of Section 171(2) read with Section 172 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act while delivering question of inheritance upon her death, which will be governed by the provisions of Section 174 of the said Act. 6. In this view of the matter the crucial question which would require consideration is the question regarding occupation of the land by the heirs of statutory tenant after expiry of period of three years. In the present case, a finding has been recorded by opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 to the effect that Hakimunnisan and Habibunnisan both were in cultivatory possession over the land in dispute after death of their father. This finding is based on the statement of husband of Habibunnisan, father of Petitioner No. 1 Usman Ghani. Although learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that father of Petitioner No. 1 is not in good terms with the Petitioner on account of marriage of Usman Ghani with widow of Sayeed Ahmad, but that cannot be said to be a good reason for discarding the testimony of father of Usman Ghani who deposed that he is not displeased with the said marriage. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has repelled the said contention which was raised before him for disbelieving the testimony of Ibraheem, father of Petitioner No. 1 Usman Ghani and I do not find any infirmity in the said finding. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has repelled the said contention which was raised before him for disbelieving the testimony of Ibraheem, father of Petitioner No. 1 Usman Ghani and I do not find any infirmity in the said finding. In view of this finding both the sisters Hakimunnisan and Habibunnisan became statutory tenants themselves in their own right after expiry of period of eight years from the date of death of Ami Mohammad, who died in the year 1925. They cannot be deemed to have become statutory tenants by inheritance because statutory tenancy holding was not heritable under Oudh Rent Act. On the advent of U.P. Tenancy Act, both the sisters became tenants of the land in question in their own right u/s 29 of the said Act although the land was held by their father as statutory tenant thereof. They cannot be deemed to have become statutory tenant or hereditary tenant by inheritance. 7. In this view of the matter, upon death of Hakimunnisan, who was tenant in her own right, inheritance will be governed by the provisions of Section 174 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and the opposite parties Nos 1, 2 and 3, being her daughter's sons, inherited her interest in the holding in dispute. The provisions of Sub-section (2)(b) of Section 172 of said Act are not attracted to the present case because Hakimunnisan caannot be deemed to have inherited interest in the holding before the date of vesting as a daughter of the last male tenure holder Ami Mohammad. As already observed above she alone with her sister has held the land in question in her own right and as such upon her death her interest in the holding devolved upon her daughter's sons u/s 174 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. 8. In this view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the aforesaid argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 9. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. I, however, direct the parties to bear their own costs. 10. Petition dismissed.