JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - Smt. Rajendra Kumari was a big land-holder. In proceedings under the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961, a large area was declared as her surplus land. About 43 persons filed objections under Section 14 (3) of that Act, claiming to be the sirdars of various plots of such land. Smt. Rajendra Kumari contested their claim. The Prescribed Authority held that the objectors had become adhivasis under Clause (i) of Section 20(1) (a) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition Act and then the sirdars. The State felt aggrieved and went up in appeal. All the 43 appeals were heard together and decided by one judgment. The District Judge held that the objectors became Asamis under clause (h) of Section 21 (1) of the Zamindari Abolition Act. He principaly relied upon the decision of a Single Judge of this Court in Bindeshwari Kunwar v. Balwant, Writ No. 3007 of 1962 decided on 5th December 1966. The decision in Bindeshwari Kunwar's case was based upon an earlier Single Judge decision of this Court in Sarju Kunwar v. Debi Daya1, 1965 ALJ 643. In Siveshwar Prasad v. Deo Nandan, S.A. No. 3950 of 1959 decided on 29th October, 1968, I took a contrary view. In my opinion, a tenant of sir from a land-holder, who was a disabled person but who was paying more than Rs. 250/- per annum as land revenue, became an adhivasi under Clause (i) of Section 20 (1) (a). He did not become an occupant within meaning of Clause (i) of Section 20 (1) (b); and, therefore, he would not become an asami under Clause (h) of Section 21 (1). I observed that Sarju Kunwar's case did not notice the distinction pointed out by two Division Benches of this Court in Jhaman Lal v. Deputy Custodian General, 19664 ALJ 273 and Pir Khan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1965 ALJ 591 that mere entry as a tenant of sir or a sub-tenant does not entitle a person to be branded as an occupant. He will become an occupant when it is established that he had no title flowing from the land-holder either as a sub-tenant or as a tenant of sir. He will become an occupant when it is established that he had no title flowing from the land-holder either as a sub-tenant or as a tenant of sir. But if he was proved to be a tenant of sir or a sub-tenant on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting, then he would be governed by Clause (i) of Section 20 (1) (a) , and would become an adhivasi. An occupant within meaning of Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 20 (1) is a person, who is proved to be without any title to the land, but is recorded in the revenue papers of 1356 F., even as a tenant of sir or sub-tenant. 2. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the petitioners were tenants of sir of Smt. Rajendra Kumari, who was assessed to more than Rs. 250/- per annum as land revenue. Even though she was a disabled person, the petitioners became adhivasis and then sirdars. 3. As the petition is entitled to succeed on this main point, which was the only point argued before the courts below, it is unnecessary to go into the subsidiary questions that, in one case, the claimant had died while the appeal was pending and so that appeal had abated, or that in another case, the objector was not actually recorded as a tenant of sir though he was admitted to be a tenant of sir. 4. The petition, therefore, succeeds, and is allowed. The impugned appellate order is set aside, and that of the Prescribed Authority restored. The petitioners would be entitled to their costs in this Court from the respondent State of U.P.