( 1 ) THIS case has been referred by Mithan Lal, J. , to a larger bench for decision of the following questions :"

( 2 ) DID the appellants become adhivasis of the disputed land under the provisions of Section 20 (a) (ii) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act from the commencement of the said Act and then became sirdars after proceedings under Chapter IX-A of the said Act?

( 3 ) ALTERNATIVELY have the appellants become adhivasis under Section 20 (b) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and thereafter sirdars under Chapter IX-A of the said Act?

( 4 ) WHETHER even if the defendants-appellants became adhivasis are they liable to be ejected under section 231 as they cannot be deemed to have held the land within the meaning of Section 240-A?" question No. 1, which is "1. Whether notwithstanding the expiry of the term of quabuliat on 13-5-1951 the defendants appellants continued to be the sub-tenants of the plots in suit till the commencement of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act because (a) of the enforcement of Section 295-A U. P. Tenancy Act, till 6/7th June, 1952, and (b) the sub-tenancy has not been extinguished as required by the provisions of Section 45, U. P. Tenancy Act?" has not been specifically referred to a larger bench because this question arising in the connected second appeals already stands referred to a larger bench. In effect, therefore, all the four questions are for answers by this bench. 2. On 14-5-1946 Bhagwan Das, who was the fixed rate tenant of the land in dispute, sublet it to defendants 1 and 2 for a period of five years. The lease was due to expire on 13-5-1951, but on 27-8-1947 Bhagwan Das transferred all his rights in the land to the plaintiff. The U. P. Tenancy act which was in force then was amended by the U. P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act, No. X of 1947; one of the amendments was to insert Section 295-A in the Tenancy Act laying down that every person, who on 14-6-1947 was a sub-tenant was, subject to the provisions of Section 27 (3) of the Amendment Act, entitled to retain possession of his holding for a period of five years from 14-6-1947. Section 27 dealt with reinstatement of certain tenants who had been ejected from their holdings; a tenant who had been ejected under Section 165 or 171 or any person who was ejected under Section 180 of the Tenancy Act was given a right to apply for reinstate-ment within six months. Similarly a tenant of sir who had become a hereditary tenant under Section 16 (1) and was ejected from his holding or any tenant who was dispossessed in consequence of any fraud or mis representation or undue influence was given a right to apply for reinstatement within six months. Sub section (3) dealt with the procedure to be followed by the Court; it was to give notice of the applica tion to the land-holder and to the tenant, if any, in possession of the holding. The proviso to Sub section (3) was to the effect that, if the holding was in the possession of any person to whom the land-holder had let it out before 1-9-1946, the Court instead of ordering his ejectment was to dec lare him to be the sub-tenant of the applicant and he was not liable to ejectment until after the ex piry of three years from the date of the declaration. Thus the right granted by Section 295-A to a sub tenant to remain to possession upto 14-6-1952 was subject to the condition that the right was reduced to a right to remain in possession for three years from the date of the declaration, if any made under Section 27 (3) of the Amendment Act. cation by an ejected tenant or person. Defendants 1 and 2 were sub-tenants on 14-6- 1947 and by virtue of Section 295-A they became entitled to remain in possession upto 14-6-1952, even though the sub-lease was to expire on 13-5- 1951. On the expire of the sub-lease the plaintiff gave to them a notice to quit and, on their failing to respond, filed a suit on 31-8-1951 for their eject- ment. A large number of persons were joined as d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document