ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - The petitioner No. 1 Halke had filed a suit under section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against Ram Chandra opposite-party No. 5. The petitioner No. 2 and opposite party No. 3 were defendants in the suit. 2. Brief allegations by the plaintiff were that the defendant Ram Chandra had no concern with the disputed land and that he had illegally occupied the disputed land since the year 1371F. hence he was liable to ejectment and to pay damages. The defence in the suit was that the defendant Ram Chandra had acquired sirdari right in the disputed land on the basis of adverse and continuous possession for more than statutory period and alternatively that the defendant was in possession over the disputed land with the consent of the tenure holder. hence the suit was not maintainable. 3. The trial court through its judgment dated 18-3-1967 decreed the plaintiffs suit for ejectment and damages as is evident from Annexure `2' attached to the writ petition. In appeal. the judgment of the trial court was confirmed. But in second appeal the plaintiffs suit has been dismissed as is: evident from the certified copy of the judgment dated 30th July, 1976., Aggrieved by the judgment of the second appellate court, the plaintiff-petitioner No. 1. along with other co-tenure holder Smt. Dhuma, has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the second appellate court has patently erred in dismissing the plaintiffs suit as not maintainable. According to him, on the findings of fact recorded by the revenue courts the possession of the defendant-opposite party. Ram Chandra. was without the consent of all the tenure-holders, hence the suit was rightly decreed by the first two courts, but the Board of Revenue has patently erred in dismissing the suit as not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the rulings reported in 1956 R.D. 428 Hira v. Gopal and 1976 RD 279 : AIR 1976 All 510 , Surendra v. Deputy Director of Consolidation. 5. None has appeared on behalf of the contesting opposite party. 6. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, but I am unable to accept the contention. 5. None has appeared on behalf of the contesting opposite party. 6. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, but I am unable to accept the contention. The ruling relief upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in 1956 RD 428 is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because it considered the provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act and according to section 246 of the U.P. Tenancy Act it was necessary that letting to a person must be done by the tenants jointly. There is no provision similar to section 246 of the U.P. Tenancy Act in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, hence that case could not be relevant for determining the claim of the parties under the provisions of U.P. Act I of 1951. 7. The ruling reported in Surendra's case ( AIR 1976 All 510 ) (supra) in my opinion goes against the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners had suggested that the possession of the defendant was not with the consent of all the the tenure-holders, hence he was a trespasser and the suit under section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms-Act was maintainable. The following observation made by the Division Bench in the ruling is relevant to determine the correctness of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners- "Section 210 of the Act provides that if the suit is not brought under section 209, the person retaining possession shall become Sirdar where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidhar. Section 209, inter alia, lays down the condition that a person should not only have taken or retained possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of law for the time being in force, but also without the consent of the Bhumidhar concerned. So, if there are more than one Bhumidhar entitled to a holding the trespasser must be in possession without the consent of all of them. Proof of lack of consent of one of them, or proof of consent of one of them, will not enure to the benefit of the trespasser in acquiring Sirdari rights under section 210 of the U.P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, even in case where the suit is not brought under Section 209 of the said Act. Proof of lack of consent of one of them, or proof of consent of one of them, will not enure to the benefit of the trespasser in acquiring Sirdari rights under section 210 of the U.P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, even in case where the suit is not brought under Section 209 of the said Act. It is suggested that where there are more than one co- sharer in the Bhumidhari holding their joint consent is necessary." 8. No doubt, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioners is attractive because the defendant was not in possession with the consent of all the tenure holders, but at the same time when the defendant was in possession with the consent of one of the tenure-holders, it is difficult to say that the defendant was a trespasser without the consent of all the Sirdars concerned. Moreover, the quoted extract of the ruling indicates that on proof of lack of consent of one of them or proof of consent of one of them will not enure to the benefit of the trespasser in acquiring Sirdari rights, under section 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. To my mind, the aforesaid observation leads to an inference that as the defendant is not a rank trespasser, so he will not acquire Sirdari right contemplated by the provision of section 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act., Moreover, when the defendant is in possession over a joint land of more than one tenant and his possession can be traced to the permission of one of the tenants, it cannot be said that the possession of the defendant would be without the consent of all the tenants though it may be without the consent of the tenure-holder technically. Since there is no similar provision in U.P. Act I of 1951 as section 246 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. I think that one of the Tenants can maintain a suit for ejectment under section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against a rank trespasser and not against a person, whose possession may be traced to the permission of any of the other co-tenure-holders. In this view of the matter. I am not prepared to hold that the Board of Revenue has taken patently erroneous view in the circumstances of the present case. In this view of the matter. I am not prepared to hold that the Board of Revenue has taken patently erroneous view in the circumstances of the present case. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard is attractive but not acceptable to me for the foregoing reasons. 9. It appears to me that the remedy to the aggrieved co-tenure-holder is by way of a suit for petition and possession under section 176 read with section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the trespasser and the other co-tenure-holders and not a simpliciter suit under section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not suffer from-any patent error of law. 10. In the result, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. As no one has appeared on behalf of the contesting opposite-party, there will be no order as to costs.