JUDGMENT B. Dayal and D.D. Seth, JJ. - In this second appeal two questions have been referred to this. Bench by a learned single Judge of this court. The questions that we have to answer are:- 1. For purposes of Section 21(1) (h) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, isthe land-holder the per-son who has instituted the suit under Section 202 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act of a person who was the land-holder on the material dates? 2. Does Section 21(1) (h) apply to a tenant, sub-tenant or occupant, as the case may be where the landholder did not belong to any one or more of the classes mentioned in sub-Sec. (1) of Section 157 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on the date of vesting but belonged to such a class or classes both on the date of letting or occupation and on the 9th of April 1946 2. These questions have been referred to this Bench, because the learned single Judge was of opinion that the interpretation put on the relevant provisions of Section 21 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by a Division Bench of this court in Dularey v. Raieshwari, 1966 A.L.J. 199 need reconsideration. The learned single Judge read that Division Bench case as indicating that the landholder under the provisions of Section 21 mentioned above should be a disabled person on the date of vesting as well as on the date of letting and on the 9th April 1946. The learned single Judge was of the view that under this section as now amended, it was not necessary to show that the landholder was a disabled person on the date of vesting also, and consequently, he disagreed with the Division Bench and referred the matter to a larger Bench. 3. We have carefully read the aforementioned decision of the Division Bench and we think that the Division Bench did not lay down any such proposition that the landholder should be a disabled person on the date of vesting. The Division Bench has merely laid down that Section 21 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is a section which confirms new rights on tenants on the date of vesting and therefore, it speaks as on the date of vesting. The Division Bench has merely laid down that Section 21 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is a section which confirms new rights on tenants on the date of vesting and therefore, it speaks as on the date of vesting. Therefore, the landholder about whom the question of disability has to be investigated should be the landholder who was in possession of that right on the date of vesting. The learned Judges did not say that such a landholder ought to be disabled on that date, but merely stated that the landlord on that date must be the same person who was disabled on the earlier two dates namely the date of letting and the 9th April 1946. We may quote the relevant portions from the judgment of his lordship the Chief Justice to indicate the above intention: "In order to decide whether the petitioner became an asami under Section 21(1) (h) (a) it has first to be determined who was his landholder immediately preceding the date of the vesting. Since he acquired ezcamt rights, if at all, on account of the vesting and with effect from the date of vesting, the provision has to be read as on tilt date of vesting. In other words it has to be determined, as on the date of vesting,' who was the landholder. This is made clear by the use of the italicised words in the clause "if there are more than one landholder." Since Section 21 is to be read as on the date of vesting, the use of the word "are" indicates that it has to be seen who w as the landholder on the date of vesting. If there was one landholder on that date he should have been a person belonging to any of the classes mentioned in Section 157 (1) on the date of the letting and also on the ninth day of April, 1946. If, on the other hand, there were two or more landholders on the date of vesting both or all should have belonged to any of the clauses at both the times." 4. It is therefore, quite clear that it was not held in this Division Bench case that the disability Must continue ' unto the date of vesting. 5. If, on the other hand, there were two or more landholders on the date of vesting both or all should have belonged to any of the clauses at both the times." 4. It is therefore, quite clear that it was not held in this Division Bench case that the disability Must continue ' unto the date of vesting. 5. We entirely agree, with due respect, with the decision of the Division Bench mentioned above, because the intention of the Legislature seems quite clear that the benefit of the subtenant remaining liable to ejectment as an Asami was intended to be given only to the landholder who was himself disabled on the date of letting as well as on the 9th April 1946 and was not intended to be given to a transferee or successor of such disabled person. Originally as sub-Sec. (h) of Set. 21 was introduced it required the disability to continue unto the date of vesting and it was, therefore, clear that on the date of vesting if the landholder was disabled, only then the subtenant in possession would get only Asanti rights otherwise he would become Adhivasi under Section 20 or a Sirdar under Section 19. Subsequently, the legislature thought that it was y unfair to those disabled landholders Whose disability ceased within three years before the date of vesting and who under the U. P. Tenancy Act Section 41 (2) could maintain such a sub-lease upto three years of the ceasing of disability, to deprive them of that right. Consequently the legislature amended sub-Sec. (h) of Section 21 by not requiring that the disability should continue upto the date of vesting but by merely requiring that the disability should continue upto the 9th April 1946. But this does not mean that, during this period from the 9th April 1946 and the date of vesting if the erstwhile disabled land-holder, whose disability ceased on or after the 9th April 1946, transferred his rights to an able bodied person, the benefit of this sub-section would go to that transferee also. But this does not mean that, during this period from the 9th April 1946 and the date of vesting if the erstwhile disabled land-holder, whose disability ceased on or after the 9th April 1946, transferred his rights to an able bodied person, the benefit of this sub-section would go to that transferee also. In order to ensure that the benefit of Section 21(1) (h) would go only to that very land-holder who had originally let out the land in disabled condition and who continued to be disabled upto the 9th April 1946, the legislature used the words "Where the land-holder or if there are more than one land-holder all of them were persons or ......." It is important to note the use of the word "are" and then the use of the word 'were' and also the use of the pronoun 'them'. The intention is that the land-holders who are landholders on the date of vesting should be the very persons who were the land-holders on the relevant dates i.e. the date of letting and the 9th April 1946. In this connection, it may also be noted that under sub-Sec. 2 of Section 41 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, such a sub-tenancy came to an end after three years of two different dates (1) the date of death of the disabled landlord and (2) the date of cessation of the disability and these two were treated as independent events and the date of death was not mated as the same as cessation of disability. Section 21 has provided for Asami rights in case of cessation of disability only and not did a case of death of the erstwhile land-holder. In case of death the land-holders on the date of vesting are necessarily different persons from those who were the land-holders on the date of letting as well as on the 9th April 1946. Agreeing with the Division Bench case, we answer the two questions as follows: (1) For the purposes of Section 21 (h) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the landholder is the person who was the land-holder on the date of vesting. Agreeing with the Division Bench case, we answer the two questions as follows: (1) For the purposes of Section 21 (h) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the landholder is the person who was the land-holder on the date of vesting. (2) Section 21(1) (h) apples to a tenant or sub-tenant or occupant as the case may be where the land-holder belonged to one or more of the classes mentioned in sub-Sec. (1) of Section 157 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, both on the date of letting or occupation and on the 9th April 1946. 6. To make the position quite clear as we understand it we reiterate that the question of disability of the landholder who files a suit does not require any consideration. Any landholder may file a suit provided the tenure holder is an Asami and the tenant would be liable to ejectment if the landlord who let him in before 9th April 1946 was a disabled land-holder or if there were more than one, all of them were disabled land-holders and he or they continued to be disabled on the 9th April 1946 and even though their disability may have ceased, they continued to be land-holder on - the date of vesting. If these three conditions are satisfied the tenant acquires only Asami rights and remains liable to ejectment. Any land-holder holding the land for the time being may sue within the period of limitation for his ejectment and would be entitled to a decree. With these answers, the papers will be returned to the learned single judge who made the reference.