M. N. SHUKLA, J. (Majority view) :- I had the advantage of perusing the opinions written by my learned brothers and after the exhaustive discussion of the subject in those two elaborate judgments it has become conveniently feasible for me to record my own views in the case with considerable brevity. In my opinion the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed with costs. I would only like to add with respect that though I agree with the ultimate conclusions of my learned brothers I am unable to agree with the opinion of Agrawal, J. on only one aspect of the case, namely, that respondents Nos. 4 to 9 had acquired the rights of hereditary tenants. I would rather subscribe to the contrary opinion of Mehrotra, J. and Gopi Nath, J. (in his referring order).

2. In a nutshell the dispute in this case arose between the petitioner who was a sub-tenant inducted by the Zamindar after obtaining a decree for ejectment under S. 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act and respondents Nos. 4 to 9 who were originally trespassers (defendants in the ejectment suit) but later persons reinstated under S. 27 (1) © of the U. P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947 (Act No. X of 1947) hereinafter referred to as the ame