ORDER S.N. Singh, J. - The short point involved in this appeal is as to whether a person who is a tenant of Sir of a disabled landholder paving more than Rs. 250/-as land revenue and is also a recorded occupant in 1356F, does he become an asami u/s 21(h) or an adhivasi u/s 20(a) (i) of the UP. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act ? 2. This is a Defendant's appeal in a suit for recovery of possession over plot No. 3419, village Mantaundh, pargana and district Banda and for damages. The case of the Plaintiff was that he was Adhivasi of the pint in suit being a tenant of Sir of a sirholder who paid more than Rs. 250/-as land revenue. It was alleged that proceedings u/s 145 of the CPC were instituted and in those proceedings plot in suit was released in favour of the Defendant in December 1955; hence he instituted the present suit. 3. The Defendant Shrimati Sarju Kunwari contested the suit on the ground that the Plaintiff was not the tenant of sir nor had he raised any crop as alleged by him. She claimed to be the Bhumidhar of the plot in suit. 4. The trial court framed certain issues and remitted the issue about Adhivasi right to the competent revenue court. The revenue court held that the Plaintiff was a tenant of sir of a landholder who paid more than Rs. 250/ as landrevenue, as such he became Adhivasi u/s 20(a)(i) of the UPZA and LR Act. It further held that since the Plaintiff was recorded as an occupant in 1356 F he became an Adhivasi u/s 20(b)(i) also. Having given these finding the revenue court returned the record to the civil court. The Munsif accepting the findings of the revenue court held the Plaintiff to be sirdar and decreed the suit for possession and Rs. 200/. as damages. 5. The Defendant preferred an appeal to the lower appellate court and the lower appellate court affirmed the decree of the trial court for ejectment but reduced the amount of damages to the tune of Rs. 80/- only and granted pendente lite damages at the rate of Rs. 60/- per year. The lower appellate court however preferred to base its judgment about the Plaintiff's Adhivasi right on the Plaintiff's being recorded as occupant in 1356 F. 6. 80/- only and granted pendente lite damages at the rate of Rs. 60/- per year. The lower appellate court however preferred to base its judgment about the Plaintiff's Adhivasi right on the Plaintiff's being recorded as occupant in 1356 F. 6. The Defendant has come up in appeal to this Court and the learned Counsel for the Defendant Appellant has submitted that on the findings recorded by the two courts below that the Plaintiff was recorded occupant in 1356F the Plaintiff only became an Asami and not an Adhivasi as held by those courts and if once the Plaintiff is held to be an Asami the suit of the Plaintiff would not be maintainable in the civil court. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties on this point and am satisfied that the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant has force and must be accepted. There is no doubt that the Plaintiff is recorded as a tenant of sir in 1356F. After the decision of the Supreme Court in Up per Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd v. Khalil-ul-Rahman and Ors. (i) (1961 AWR 78) and Amba Prasad v. Mahboob Ali Shah and Ors. (2) (1961 AWR 541), entry of a subtenant or a tenant of sir has to be accepted to be an entry of a recorded occupant. If the Plaintiff is a recorded occupant in 1356F he clearly comes u/s 21 sub Clause (h). Section 21 (h) applies to these kinds of persons: (1) tenants of sir of a disabled land holder who did not pay more than Rs. 250/- as land revenue; (2) sub tenants and (3) recorded occupants. On the findings recorded by the courts below the Plaintiff will not come in category No. (sic) but he will surely come in category No. 3, because so far as category No. 3 is concerned there is no limit of payment of land revenue, as such he will be an Asami. 8. Section 21 begins with the words notwithstanding anything contained it this Act. These words of this section would clearly go to show that if a person's case is covered by Section 21 as well as by some other section nevertheless he will be held to be an Asami. Section 20 also suggests the same thing after having given as to who are Adhivasis. These words of this section would clearly go to show that if a person's case is covered by Section 21 as well as by some other section nevertheless he will be held to be an Asami. Section 20 also suggests the same thing after having given as to who are Adhivasis. It mentions as follows: Shall, unless he has become a bhumidhar of the land Wider Sub-section (2) of Section 18 or an asami urider Clause (h) of Section 21, be called adhivasi of the land and shall, subject to the provisoions of this Act, be entitled to take or retain possession thereof. 9. These lines appended to Section 2(sic) would show that if a person is covered by Section 21 (h) he cannot take benefit of Section 20(b)(i). In this view of the matter I find that the Plaintiff has acquired only Asami right and not an Adhivasi right as held by the two courts below. Once it is held that the Plaintiff is only an Asami his suit in the civil court cannot be entertained. The remedy for the Plaintiff in such circumstances would be by a suit u/s 212B of the UPZA and LR Act. 10. Accordingly I find force in this appeal, accept it, set aside the judgment and decree of the courts below and dismiss the suit of the Plaintiff. But in the peculiar circumstances of this case I direct the parties to bear their own costs throughout.