JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - This petition is directed against orders passed by consolidation authorities. It is not disputed that on 23rd July, 1920 one Nepal's widow Smt. Inau executed a mortgage deed of occupancy holding in favour of petitioners ancestors the widow died on 23rd April, 1936. At time of her death Agra Tenancy Act was in force and under that Act a daughter was not an heir. Subsequently it appears the proprietor settled the land with Smt. Ram Dei, the daughter of Nepal and Smt. Inau. She transferred the land in favour of respondent no. 4. During consolidation proceedings dispute arose between petitioners and respondent no. 4 in respect of land in dispute. The petitioner tiled an objection u/s 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming to have acquired rights in land in dispute by remaining in possession. The consolidation authorities rejected the claim of petitioner and upheld the claim of respondents. 2. It is not necessary to narrate any fact further as Controversy appears to be concluded in favour of respondent by a decision in Raja Narain Pande v. Sant Prasad Dev, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 291 In this case the occupancy tenant had mortgaged and thereafter surrendered the land in favour of proprietor, who subsequently settled the land in favour of third person who filed the suit for ejectment of the mortgagee. The claim of mortgagees was that they had acquired rights by adverse possession. The Supreme Court repelled the contention and held that as the plaintiffs became occupancy tenants, of the land in dispute; they were in our opinion entitled to redeem the land from the mortgagee. 3. The decision has been sought to be distinguished as surrender and settlement in the Supreme Court case were simultaneously to be a consent decree, therefore, there was no break in tenancy. It is also urged that on analogy of sub-section (2) of Section 33 applicable to tenants once the mortgagor surrendered or died heir-less then the possession of mortgagee became in his own right and if no suit for possession was filed within twelve years then right, title or interest to redeem extinguished and the petitioner matured its rights by adverse possession. 4. Factual distinction may be there but on principle there appears to be no difference. Once a tenant surrendered his holding then he ceased to be tenant and bis consent was of no consequence. 4. Factual distinction may be there but on principle there appears to be no difference. Once a tenant surrendered his holding then he ceased to be tenant and bis consent was of no consequence. Whether the settlement was made on same day or sometime after also would not make any difference as the mortgagee, by surrender or death of the mortgagor-or extinction of his interest u/s 45 of U.P. Tenancy Act, did not become trespasser. His status under law continued to be same. The Zamindar could himself eject him, get the mortgage redeemed or settle the land with a third person. The effect of which in law would be that such person became entitled to redeem. Fresh settlement of tenancy shall be deemed to have included the right to redeem as well in any case petitioner could not successfully resist opposite party's claim. He could utmost claim the mortgage amount. As regards extinction of mortgagee's interest on analogy of Section 32 (2) of U.P. Tenancy Act suffice it to mention that Section 91 of transfer of Property Act specifically provides for this contingency. 5. In the result this petition fails and is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.