SATISH CHANDRA, J. :- Hukam Singh, respondent No. 1, was the occupancy tenant of the holding in dispute. On 20th May, 1944, the zamindar obtained a decree for his ejectment under Section 171 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. The decree was ejectment and possession taken by the zamirdar. Thereafter, he let out the land to toe predecessor of the present appellants. On coming into force of the U.P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act 10 of 1947 Hukam Singh made an application for reinstatement to the holding. This application was allowed on 10th, January, 1949. Under the proviso to Section 27(3) of the Amending Act, the present appellants were declared sub-tenants not liable to ejectment for three years. The three years immunity expired on 10th January, 1952.

2. In 1955 Hukam Singh filed a suit for a declaration under Section 229-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act that be was the sirdar in possession of the land in dispute and that the present appellants had no right in it. He also fled a similar declaratory suit in the civil Court. The revenue Court suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. During the pendency of the civil suit Ch. IXA of the Zamindari Abolition Act came into operation. On 9th July, 1956, Hukam Singh made an application under Section 240-G of this Act praying for the removal of the names of the present appellants as sirdars from the revenue papers. It appears that subsequently in 1957 Hukam Singh instituted yet another declaratory snit against the present appellants. In that wit it was prayed in the alternative that if the defendants are held to be in possession, a decree for their ejectment under Section 202 of the Zamindari Abolition Act may also be granted. While these proceedings were ponding, the land in dispute came under consolidation operations.

3. Hukam Singh filed objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming to be the sirdar of the plots. He claimed that soon after the expiry of the three year period on 10th January, 1952, he obtained possession and was since then in cultivatory possession of the plots. He being an occupancy tenant, became a sirdar under Section 19 of the Zamindari Abolition Act.

4. The appellants contested the objection. Their case was that they had themselves continued to be in cultivatory possession throughout. As sub-tenants they became asamis under Section 21(1)© of the Zamiadari Abolition Act The cause of action for their ejectment accused on 10th January, 1952. At that time the prescribed period of limitation was one year. On the expiry of that prescribed period of limitation, they became sirdars under Section 204 of the Act.

5. The consolidation authorities concurrently found that the erstwhile sub-tenants had continued to remain in possession of the plots. Hukam Singh never regained possession. After the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation of one year, the title of Hukam Singh extinguished and the present appellants became sirdars under Section 204.

6. Feeling aggrieved, Hukam Singh filed a writ petition in this Court. A learned single Judge, relying upon the decision of another single Judge in Khubi Singh v. Joint Director of Consolidation, 1968 RD 23, held that the amendment to Entry 25 in Appendix III of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, whereby the period of limitation of one year was substituted by 'none', was retrospective. After the amendment there was no period of limitation for such a suit and so the erstwhile sub-tenants did not become sirdars. The contrary view of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was manifestly erroneous in law. On this view the writ petition was allowed and the matter was sent back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for disposal of the revision afresh. The erstwhile sub-tenants came up in special appeal.

7. At the hearing of the appeal it was urged that the sub-tenants held land for a fixed term on the expiry of which cause of action for their ejectment accrued, with the result