JUDGMENT

Hari Swarup, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by Jiwa Ram respondent No. 1 and quashing the orders of the Revenue Courts.

2. One Data Ram was a Cotenure holder of plot No. 41. In 1954 he sold his share in the plot to Smt. Ganga Devi. On December 24, 1958, Smt. Ganga Devi executed a lease of her share in the joint holding in favour of Madho Singh. Madho Singh then made an application under Sub-sec. (2) of Section 157 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the separation of the share of his lessor Smt. Ganga Devi. The application was mainly contested by Kalyan Das and after his death by his son Jiwa Ram respondent No. 1. The application was allowed by the trial court, an appeal against the order of the trial court was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner and a second appeal was dismissed by the Board of Revenue. Jiwa Ram then filed a writ petition in this Court. The learned Single Judge held that Madho Singh the lessee was not entitled to make the application under Sub-sec. (2) of Section 157 and quashed the order of the Revenue Court. Against the judgment of the learned single Judge Madho Singh and Smt. Ganga Devi have preferred this appeal.

3. The main point argued before us was whether the lessee had a right to file the application for partition under Sec. 157(2). Sec. 157 runs as under: -

"157(1) A bhumidhar or a sirdar or an asami holding the land in lieu of maintenance allowance under Section 11 who is -

(a) unmarried woman, or if married, divorced or separated from her husband or whose husband suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (c) or (d) or a widow;

(b) a minor whose father suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (c) or (d) or has died ;

(c) a lunatic or an idiot;

(d) a person incapable of cultivating by reason of blindness or other physical infirmity;

(e) prosecuting studies in a recognised institution and does not exceed 25 years in age and whose father suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (c) or (a) or has died;

(f) in the Military, Naval, or Air service of the India Dominion; or

(g) under detention or imprisonment;

may let the whole or any part of his holding:-

Provided that in the case of a holding held jointly by more persons than one, but one or more of then, but not all are subject to the disabilities mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) the person or persons may let out his or their share in the holding.

(2) Where any share of a holding has been let out under the proviso to Sub-sec, (1), the court may on the application of the asami or any tenure-holder determine the share of the lessor in the holding and partition the same."

4. The co-tenants in plot No. 41 were Bhumidhars. Admittedly Smt. Ganga Devi was a disabled person and the other co-tenure-holders were not disabled. Smt. Ganga Devi let out her entire share to Madho Singh. The case was clearly covered by the proviso to Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 157. Again, admittedly Madho Singh, being the lessee of a disabled Bhumidhar became an Asami under Sec. 133(b) of the Act

5. Sub-sec. (2) of Section 157 confers the right to make the application upon "the Asami or any tenure holder." The question which arises for consideration is whether the word "the Asami" refers to the lessee who has become an Asami under Sec. 133(b) or to the Asami under Section 11 referred to in the opening part of Sub-sec. (1). Sec. 129 provides that there shall be three classes of tenure holders, that is to say, Bhumidhars, Sirdars and Asamis. All the three types of persons mentioned in the opening part of Sub sec. (1) will be tenure holders.

6. Sub-sec. (2) applies to cases covered by the proviso to Sub-sec. (1). It confers the right to get the share of the lessor separated. In cases covered by this provision, there will be three types of persons, namely, the disabled tenure-holder or tenure-holders, the tenure-holder or tenure-holde