JUDGMENT S.N. Dwivedi, J. - A Division Bench has referred for opinion this question: Does a person, who has become an asami Under Clause (b) of Section 21(1) of the UP ZA and LR Act, become a sirdar u/s 204 of that Act, of no suit for his ejectment u/s 202 is instituted within one year from the date of vesting? The reference has been made on account of a supposed conflict between two Division Bench decisions-Unchan Singh v. Board of Revenue 1962 AWR 29 and Ghasi v. Waqf Alalaulad 1969 AWR 602 . 2. Before dealing with these two cases, it is necessary to examine the matter in the light of certain provisions of the U.P. Tenancy Act and the UP ZA and LR Act (hereinafter called the Act). The question is confined to a tenure-holder enumerated in Clause (b) of Section 21(1) of the Act. He is a sub-tenant of grove land. Accordingly we shall answer the question referred to us only in relation to a sub-tenant of grove land. Section 3(22) of the Tenancy Act defines a sub-tenant. The expression "Sub-tenant" means, inter alia, a person who holds land from a grove holder. A sub-tenant of a grove land will be a non-occupancy tenant u/s 31 of the Tenancy Act. Section 175 of the Tenancy Act provides for ejectment of a non-occupancy tenant on two grounds: (1) That he is a tenant holding from year to year; and (2) that he is a tenant holding under a lease for a period which has expired or will expire before the end of the current agricultural year. Section 202(b) of the Act provides that an asami shall be liable to ejectment from his holding on the suit of the landholder on the ground that he belongs, inter alia, to the class enumerated in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 and that he holds the land from year to year or for a period which has expired or will expire before the end of the current agricultural year. It may be observed that Section 202(b) of the Act resembles Section 175 of the Tenancy Act. A sub-tenant of grove land could be a tenant for a fixed term or from year to year. In the case of a fixed term, the term could have expired before the date of vesting or may expire after the date of vesting. It may be observed that Section 202(b) of the Act resembles Section 175 of the Tenancy Act. A sub-tenant of grove land could be a tenant for a fixed term or from year to year. In the case of a fixed term, the term could have expired before the date of vesting or may expire after the date of vesting. In the case of a year to year tenancy the tenure would cease after the lease is determined. 3. Limitation for instituting a suit for ejectment of an asami of the class enumerated in Section 21(1)(b) of the Act is provided for in entry No. 25 of Appendix III to the ZA and LR Rules. It is one year. Col. 5 of the Entry reads: From the date of vesting where the cause of action arose u/s 202(b) before the date of vesting and in all other cases from the date on which the cause of action arose. Evidently col. 5 provides for two starting points of limitation. Where the cause of action for ejectment had arisen before the date of vesting, time would run from the date of vesting; where the cause of action arises after the date of vesting, then time would run from the date on which the cause of action arose. 4. Where the sub-tenant held grove land for a fixed term and the term had expired before the date of vesting, time would run from the date of vesting under the first part of col. No. 5. Where the sub-tenant held grove land for a fixed term and the term has expired after the date of vesting, time would run from the date on which the term expired after the date of vesting in accordance with the first part of col. No. 5. But where the sub-tenant holds grove land from year to year, the cause of action will arise only when the land holder has determined the lease. In such a case time would run from the date on which the lease ceases to have effect. If no suit is instituted within limitation, the asami would become a sirdar. This is our answer to the question referred to us. 5. We have examined the two Division Bench decisions. But we do not find any inconsistency between them. In such a case time would run from the date on which the lease ceases to have effect. If no suit is instituted within limitation, the asami would become a sirdar. This is our answer to the question referred to us. 5. We have examined the two Division Bench decisions. But we do not find any inconsistency between them. In Unchan Singh's case, the asami held land for a fixed term of three years u/s 27 of the U.P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947 and his period of three years had expired before the date of vesting. Accordingly it was held that the limitation would run from the date of vesting as provided for in the first part of col. No. 5. In Ghasi's case, it appears that the lease in favour of the asami was from year to year. It was accordingly held that as long as there is no determination of the lease, the lessee can remain in possession and hence no cause of action can be deemed to have arisen for the ejectment of a person in possession. In such a case limitation would run from the date on which the determination of the lease by the land holder takes effect. 6. The case shall now go back to the learned single Judge with the answer given by us.