JUDGMENT : K.N. Misra, J. This writ petition is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 21-12-1974 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which he allowed the revision filed by opposite parties 4 to 6 namely, Mohd. Muneer, Mohd. Yaqub and Sri Mohd. Siddique sons of Abdul Wahid and declared them to have acquired Sridari rights by adverse possession and directed that their names be recorded as Sirdars on the plot in dispute by expunging the name of the revisionist Anmol Singh. Anmol Singh filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. During pendency of the writ petition he died and his heir and legal successor Smt. Katora was substituted. 2. The dispute in the present case relates to pot No. 42 which was entered in the basic year Khatauni in the name of Anmol Singh as Bhumidhar. Mohd. Muneer and others the opposite parties 4 to 6 were recorded as trespassers in clause 9, part II Khatauni. They filed objection claiming Sirdari rights in the said land on the basis of their continuous dispossession for more than the prescribed limitation. 3. The case was contested by the Petitioner Anmol Singh on the ground that his father had mortgaged land with the father of Abdul Wahid who continued to be a mortgagee. It was thus urged that on the date of abolition of zamindari the status of opposite parties 4 to 6 was only that of licensees and they continued as such and could not perfect Sirdari rights by adverse possession. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objection filed by opposite parties 4 to 6 and maintained the basic year entry, vide order dated 29-1-1972. Aggrieved by that order opposite parties 4 to 6 preferred appeal which too was dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Sultanpur vide order dated 22-9-1972. Aggrieved by these orders opposite parties 4 to 6 preferred revision which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and their names were directed to be recorded as Sirdars after expunging the names of the recorded tenure-holder Anmol Singh. 4. Learned Deputy Director of Consolidation referred to the evidence on record and found that a suit for ejectment and damages u/s 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act was filed by Anmol Singh against the opposite parties 4 to 6 in which it was pleaded that Mohd. 4. Learned Deputy Director of Consolidation referred to the evidence on record and found that a suit for ejectment and damages u/s 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act was filed by Anmol Singh against the opposite parties 4 to 6 in which it was pleaded that Mohd. Muneer and others were occupants without title and that their possession from 1st July 1952 was adverse and without the consent of the recorded tenure-holder. Muneer and others had claimed Sirdari rights in that suit. Anmol Singh filed an application in the Court of Munsif seeking withdraw with permission to file a fresh suit. His application was rejected and the suit was dismised as Anmol Singh did not pursue it. No fresh suit was filed subsequently by Anmol Singh. On these facts learned Deputy Director of Consolidation held that Anmol Singh admitted possession of the revisionists opposite parties 4 to 6 to be that of a trespassers from 1st July, 1952, and, as such, they had perfected right by adverse possession. 5. It was urged before the Deputy Director of Consolidation that opposite parties 4 to 6 were licensees being mortgagees and mere filing of the suit for ejectment against them would not change the character of their possession as that of a trespasser. This contention was not accepted by the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation and I find no error in it. In Rodney Shyam v. Ram 1969 AWR 674 it was held that: Undoubtedly, a certain change in the nature of the legal rights of the Bhumidhar and his mortgagee was brought about by the Act but it could not have the effect of converting the permissive possession of the mortgagee into adverse possession. It is true that revocation of consent by a bhumidhar, in a case where the person in possession of his land loses the right to continue in possession which was in its origin permissive, need not take any, particular form, and if a suit u/s 209 of the Act is filed by the Bhumidhar for the ejectment of such person that would itself be proof of and amount to revocation. (Emphasis supplied). (Emphasis supplied). In view of the above I find that the right of mortgagee to continue in possession as a mortgagee, will come to an end by reason of Section 14(1) of the UP Z and LR Act and the mortgagor of Sir and Khudkasht land would be deemed to be Bhumidhar u/s 18 of the Act. If mortgagee continues in possession be would continue merely as a licensee and the mortgagor, who acquired bhumidhari rights u/s 18 of the Act, would be entitled to withdraw his consent and eject the mortgagee whenever he chooses to do so. The suit for ejectment filed by the bhumidhar against the mortgagee would be maintainable u/s 209 of the Act. The filing of the suit for ejectment would itself amount to revocation of permissive possession and no further notice would be necessary. Thus in the present case the licence for remaining in possession stood revoked when the suit for ejectment u/s 209 was filed by Anmol Singh against opposite parties 4 to 6. Anmol Singh had pleaded in the suit that the Defendants were in occupation without title and their possession from 1st July, 1982 was adverse and without consent of the Plaintiff. The Defendants had contested the suit asserting that they had acquired Sirdari rights by adverse possession. The suit was dismissed in default and was not got restored. Anmol Singh had also not filed any application for restoration of the suit nor any appeal was preferred against the decree dismissing the suit in default. No suit for ejectment was also subsequently filed. The result was that the opposite parties 4 to 6 continued to remain in adverse possession and they thus acquired Sirdari rights by adverse possession over the land in dispute. Thus the Deputy Director of Consolidation in my opinion, has not committed any error in holding the opposite parties 4 to 6 to have acquired Sirdari rights by adverse possession. 6. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.