JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J.:— This appeal by certificate is directed against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants in limine. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length. The only point for determination in the present appeal is whether the case of the parties is governed by Section 12 or Section 13 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 (Act 1 of 1950) (hereinafter called the Act). The facts in dispute are that so far as the appellants are concerned, they were originally the zamindars of the lands in dispute and they granted Thekas to the respondents first on the 10th of July, 1933 and then on the 24th May, 1943. The interpretation of the terms of the Theka would determine the question of the status of the appellants.

2. Shri Shiv Pujan Singh, appearing for the appellants, submitted that as the Theka granted by the Zamindars was not made with the lessees only for the purposes of personal cultivation of the lands the respondents would not fall within the ambit of Sec. 12 of the Act. On the other hand it was argued for the respondents that as they were in cultivating possession of the lands in question, they had acquired the status of hereditary tenants conferred on them by Section 12 of the Act and they are not Assam is as contemplated by Section 13 of the Act. Although the appellants succeeded before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), the Deputy Director of Consolidation held in revision that the appellants were Bhoomidars and the respondents could not get any status under Section 12 of the Act.

3. In order to decide this question, we have to determine the scope and ambit of Section 12 of the Act.

"12. Thekedars to be hereditary tenants in certain circumstances - (1) Where any land was in the personal cultivation of a person on the 1st day of May, 1950, as a thekedar thereof and the theka was made with a view to the cultivation of the land by such thekedar personally, then notwithstanding anything in any law, document or order of court, he shall be deemed to be a hereditary tenant thereof entitled to hold, and when he has been ejected from the land after the said date, to regain possession as a hereditary tenant thereof liable to pay rent at hereditary rates."

4. An analysis of this section would show that before a person can be held to be a hereditary tenant under the section, the following conditions must be fulfilled:-

1. He must be in possession of the land in dispute on the 1st of May, 1950.

2. His possession must be under a Theka.

3. The Theka must be for the purpose of personal cultivation of the lands in dispute by the person. (emphasis supplied) and not for other purposes. The dominant intention of the statute, as of other land reforms legislation, is to secure land for the tiller of the soil who alone would be clothed with the special rights of a hereditary tenant.

5. It is, therefore, manifest that only if the above three conditions are fulfilled, would the Thekedars get the status of hereditary tenants and not otherwise. This section was interpreted by a decision of this Court in the case of Civil Appeal No. 1951 of 1969, decided on 18-10-1979 (reported in AIR 1980 SC 348) where this Court observed as follows :-

"If such a land was in the personal cultivation of a person on the 1st of May, 1950 as a Thekedar thereof and if the Theka was made with a view to the cultivation of the land by such Thekedar personally then because of the non obstante clause occurring in sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act the Thekedar would be deemed to be a hereditary tenant of the land entitled to hold as such and liable to pay rent on hereditary rates. If, however, the land was in personal cultivation of the Thekedar merely as a Thekedar appointed to collect rent from other tenants and incidentally allowed to cultivate the Sir or Khudkasht land of the lessor then he will be a mere asami in accordance with S. 13 (2) (a) of the Act.

6. The fact