JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State. 2. In pursuance to the order dated 19.12.2024, the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record. 3. Under challenge is the order dated 29.9.2024 passed by D.D.C., Sultanpur whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the contention of the petitioner as alleged by him was that he has a house on plot no.3436/6 but he could not establish it either by documentary or oral evidence. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially predecessor of private respondent nos.4 to 7 namely Munshilal has attempted to disturb the possession of the petitioner from the house which was constructed on plot no.3436/6 and the petitioner was compelled to institute a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadipur, District Sultanpur registered as Regular Suit No.59 of 2003. It is urged that in the said civil suit, an interim order dated 11.2.2003 was passed, which is still subsisting till date. 5. It is further urged that neither the private respondent nos.4 to 7 are in possession nor they have any right, title or interest in respect of the said property, however, merely on the basis of surmises, they preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, claiming their rights over plot no.3436/6 and without impleading the petitioner as a party therein, the appeals were allowed ex parte vide order dated 30.12.2023. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner upon coming to know of the said fact preferred a revision before the D.D.C. and D.D.C., Sultanpur has dismissed the said revision solely on the ground that the petitioner could not indicate that he is the recorded tenure holder of plot no.3436/06 and that it was part of his mool Gata. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that it was specifically stated in he memo of revision that private respondents was given some room which was constructed by the petitioner on rent and the private respondents have started claiming title to the said property and claiming it to be the house of their own. 8. It is urged that these facts were not appropriately taken note of by the the revisional court and vide impugned order dated 29.9.2024, the revision was dismissed. 9. 8. It is urged that these facts were not appropriately taken note of by the the revisional court and vide impugned order dated 29.9.2024, the revision was dismissed. 9. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the material on record, it indicates that the petitioner had filed a suit bearing no.59/2003, however, in the plaint, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.3, it is nowhere stated that the private defendants in the said suit were the tenants of the petitioner. The interim order granted in the said civil suit, a copy of which is on record as Annexure No.4, indicates that the defendants of the suit were restrained from demolishing the construction. Considering the said pleadings in the suit as well as the order, it would be clear that it is not the case of the petitioner before the trial court that the defendants were in possession of the property in any manner viz-a-viz claiming rights or even as a tenant. 10. It is also the case of the petitioner that the interim order in the said suit continues to subsist till date. If that be so, then it has not been indicated that under what circumstances and when the petitioner had let out a room, which is alleged to be in possession of the private respondent as a tenant. 11. The pleadings as made in the memo of revision preferred before the D.D.C., a copy of which is on record as Annexure No.6, gives a complete different version than as contained in the plaint in suit. 12. The record further reveals that the petitioner has not indicated in what circumstances, he is the owner of the said house whereas the private respondents are also claiming a right over the said house which are both allegedly on plot no.3436/6. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances where the petitioner who has approached this court and the basic burden is on him to establish the rights over the property has not been indicated in any manner. In absence of any material, pleadings or document, to establish the basic contention which the petitioner seeks to urge is not on record, hence, this court is unable to accede to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. In absence of any material, pleadings or document, to establish the basic contention which the petitioner seeks to urge is not on record, hence, this court is unable to accede to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. Moreover, the stand of the petitioner is different in the civil suit wherein as per the petitioner, the property is in his exclusive possession. In the revision before the D.D.C., the stand of the petitioner is different and it is alleged that the respondent is in occupation as a tenant. In this view the finding of the D.D.C. and its reasoning cannot be faulted. 15. A reference has also been made to Section 19 (6) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 to contend that as far as possible it is the intention of the Act to accommodate the person on his original land holding including taking note of any source of irrigation or improvements made by the said tenure holder. 16. Even taking note of the aforesaid provision, it would be seen that there is nothing on record to establish the fact that the petitioner is the recorded tenure holder of plot no.3436/06 and he has made improvements on the said land either for the purposes of irrigation or that he has constructed the house. Thus, the aforesaid contention also does not impress this court. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, this court does not find any merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed.