JUDGMENT G.C. Mathur, J. - These two writ petitions are before us for decision on a reference made by S.N. Singh, J. The question, which has necessitated these reference, is "Whether a tenant of Sir, who is so recorded in the records of 1356 Fasli, is a 'recorded occupant' for purposes of Section 21(1)(h) of the UP ZA and LR Act." Satish Chandra, J. has, in S.A. No. 3950 of 1959 decided on October 29, 1968, taken the view that the tenant of Sir is not a 'recorded occupant' and S.N. Singh, J., in the order of reference, has taken a contrary view. 2. In consolidation proceedings, objections were filed by Raja Ram (Respondent No. 6 in Writ Petition No. 3170 of 1965) and by Bharat Singh (Respondent No. 6 in Writ Petition No. 3171 of 1965), claiming that on the date of vesting they had become adhivasis of the land in dispute and subsequently, sirdars of the land and that the Petitioner, who is the successor-in-interest of the original sirholder, became bhumidhar on the date of vesting but her rights were extinguished u/Ch. IX-A of the Act. The Petitioner contended that they became asamis and not adhivasis. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) decided in favour of the Petitioner but the Dy. Director of Consolidation in second appeal and the Joint Director of Consolidation in revision have held in favour of the contesting Respondents. There is no dispute about the facts of these cases. The admitted facts are set out in the order of the Consolidation Officer. They are: 1. That Janki Ballabh was the original zamindar and the sir-holder of the disputed plots. He died in April, 1946 and was succeeded by his widow Srimati Kiran Kunwar and by his pre-deceased son's widow Srimati Prakash Kunwar. Srimati Prakash Kunwar died in 1951 and Srimati Kiran Kunwar died in 1953 and the Petitioner, Kumari Radha Kishori, daughter of Srimati Prakash Kunwar, succeeded them. 2. That Respondents Raja Ram and Bharat Singh were the original tenants of Sir but Janki Ballabh ejected them in June, 1352 Fasli (1945). The land was again let out to these Respondents in 1354 Fasli by Srimati Kiran Kunwar and Srimati Prakash Kunwar. 3. That these two Respondents were tenants of Sir on June 30, 1952. 4. That Janki Ballabh, the original sir holder and subsequently, his successors paid more than Rs. The land was again let out to these Respondents in 1354 Fasli by Srimati Kiran Kunwar and Srimati Prakash Kunwar. 3. That these two Respondents were tenants of Sir on June 30, 1952. 4. That Janki Ballabh, the original sir holder and subsequently, his successors paid more than Rs. 800/- per annum as land revenue. 5. That in the records of 1356 Fasli, the contesting Respondents were recorded as tenants of Sir. 3. On these facts, it was urged by the Petitioner before the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) that, since, at the time of letting, the land holders were disabled persons, the tenants of Sir could only acquire asami rights u/s 21(1)(h) and not adhivasi rights u/s 20(a)(1) of the Act. This contention found favour with these two authorities. In second appeal, the Dy. Director of Consolidation held that, since the disabled land holders were paying land revenue of more than Rs. 250/- per annum, the tenants of Sir did not become asamis u/s 21(1)(h) but became adhivasis u/s 20(a)(i). This is also the view taken by the Joint Director of Consolidation. Before the Dy. Director of Consolidation as well as the Joint Director of Consolidation a new plea was raised by the Petitioner that, since the contesting Respondents were recorded as tenants of Sir in the records of 1356 Fasli, they must be deemed to be recorded occupants and as such they became asamis u/s 21(1)(h) even though the landholder was paying a land revenue of over Rs. 250/- per annum. Both these authorities repelled this contention holding that a tenant of sir or a sub-tenant could not be regarded as a 'recorded occupant'. It is the correctness of the view expressed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation and the Joint Director of Consolidation on the new plea raised that has been challenged in these two writ petitions. 4. In Ram Dular Singh v. Babu Sukhu Ram 1963 AWR 441 a Full Bench of this Court took the view that a person entered as a sub-tenant in the Khasra or Khatauni of 1356 Fasli could not be said to have been recorded as an occupant. The Supreme Court has taken a different view in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Khalil-ul-Rahman 1961 AWR 78 and Amba Prasad v. Mahboob Ali Shah 1964 AWR 541. The Supreme Court has taken a different view in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Khalil-ul-Rahman 1961 AWR 78 and Amba Prasad v. Mahboob Ali Shah 1964 AWR 541. The Supreme Court has held that the entry of a subtenant is an entry of an occupant qua the tenant-in-chief and the entry of a tenant is an entry of an occupant qua the landlord. It, therefore, follows from the Supreme Court judgments that the entry of a tenant or sub-tenant in the records of 1356 Fasli can amount to an entry of occupant; but it does not follow from this that every entry of tenant or subtenant in the records of 1356 Fasli must necessarily amount to an entry of occupant. In Pir Khan v. Dy. Director of Consolidation 1965 AWR 404 , a Division Bench of this Court, after considering the above mentioned two decisions of the Supreme Court, held that an entry of sub-tenant in 1356 Fasli in favour of a person, who was, in fact, a sub-tenant did not amount to an entry of occupant and that such a person did not acquire adhivasi rights u/s 20(b) but could acquire such rights only u/s 20(a)(ii). The reason given for the view was that a person, who was, in fact, a sub-tenant, held the land on behalf of the tenant and therefore, he could not be treated as a mere occupant. S.N. Singh, J. has observed that the decision in Pir Khan's case has been overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Chaubey Sunder Lal v. Sonu 1967 AWR 426 . The main question for consideration before the Full Bench was whether, in view of the Supreme Court decisions referred to above, the decision of the earlier Full Bench in Ram Dular Singh v. Babu Sukhu Ram (supra) was still good law or not. The Full Bench held that the decision in Ram Dular Singh's case was no longer good law. The Full Bench was not called upon to decide whether a person, who was, in fact, a sub-tenant and was so recorded in 1356 Fasli, could be treated as a 'recorded occupant'. So far as we can see the 1967 Full Bench deals with a different question and has not overruled the decision of the Division Bench in Pir Khan's case. So far as we can see the 1967 Full Bench deals with a different question and has not overruled the decision of the Division Bench in Pir Khan's case. An occupant can only be against the zamindari or the tenant or sub-tenant of the land, i.e., against some one holding the legal title in the land. If the land has been let out to a tenant, then the occupant can only be against the tenant. If the name of the tenant is recorded in the records of 1356F and he can be considered to be a recorded occupant also, then he will be an occupant against himself. Section 20(b) does not contemplate a rightful tenureholder being an occupant--it contemplates an occupant as some one other than the rightful tenure holder who is capable of acquiring adhivasi rights against him. However, in the view which we are taking, it is neither necessary to examine this question any further nor to refer the matter for decision to a larger bench. 5. The relevant part of Section 20 reads as follows: 20. Every person who-- (a) On the date immediately preceding the date of vesting was or has been deemed to be in accordance with the provisions of this Act-- (i) except as provided in Sub-clause (i) of Clause (b), a tenant of sir other than a tenant referred to in Clause (ix) of Section 19 or in whose favour hereditary rights accrue in accordance with the provisions of Section 10, or (ii) except as provided in Sub-clause (i) of Clause (b), a sub-tenant other than a subtenant referred to in proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the UP Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947 or in Sub-section (4) of Section 47 of the UP Tenancy Act, 1939, of any land other than, grove land: (b) was recorded as occupant: (i)... ... ... (ii)... ... ... shall, unless he has become a bhumidhar of the land Under Sub-section (2) of Section 18 or an asami Under Clause (h) of Section 21, be called adhivasi of the land and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to take or retain possession thereof. In the present cases, the contesting Respondents were admittedly tenants of Sir land. In the present cases, the contesting Respondents were admittedly tenants of Sir land. Admittedly, they were not tenants referred to in Clause (ix) of Section 19 or tenants in whose favour hereditary rights accrued u/s 10; nor are they tenants who have become bhumidhars Under Sub-section (2) of Section 18. Therefore, they became adhivasis u/s 20(a)(i) unless they can be held to have become asamis u/s 21(1)(h) of the Act. Section 21(1)(h) reads thus: 21 (1). Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, every person who, on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting, occupied or held land as-- (h) a tenant of sir land referred to in Sub-clause (a) of Clause (i) of the Explanation u/s 16, a sub-tenant referred to in Sub-section (ii) of Clause (a) of Section 20 or an occupant referred to in Sub-clause (i) of Clause (b) of the said section where the landholder, or if there are more than one landholder, all of them were person or persons belonging-- (a) if the land was let out or occupied prior to the ninth day of April, 1946, both on the date of letting or occupation, as the case may be and the ninth day of April, 1946, and (b) if the land was let out or occupied on or after the ninth day of April, 1946, on the date of letting or occupation, to any one or more of the clauses mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 157 ... ... ... shall be deemed to be an asami thereof. Clause (h) seeks to confer asami rights on three classes of persons, namely, (1) tenants of Sir, (ii) sub-tenants and (iii) occupants. It will be noticed that it is on these three classes of persons that Section 20 seeks to confer adhivasi rights. In view of the words in Section 20 "unless he has become an asami Under Clause (h) of Section 21" and of the opening words of Section 21 "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act", it is clear that the provisions of Section 21(1)(h) will override the provisions of Section 20 and a person, who acquires asami rights u/s 21(1)(h) will not acquire adhivasi rights u/s 20. It is, therefore, legitimate to read Section 20 together with Section 21(1)(h). It is, therefore, legitimate to read Section 20 together with Section 21(1)(h). Thus read together, it is apparent that a tenant of Sir, who has not already become a bhumidhar, sirdar or hereditary tenant, will acquire adhivasi rights u/s 20(a)(i) unless he is covered by the first part of Clause (h) of Section 21(1) and is a tenant of Sir land referred to in Sub-section (a) of Clause (i) of the Explanation u/s 16 and his landholder is a disabled person. Likewise, a subtenant would acquire adhivasi rights u/s 20(a)(ii) unless he falls in the second class of cases contemplated in Clause (h) of Section 21(1) and his landlord is a disabled person. Similarly, a recorded occupant, who is covered by the provisions of Section 20(b)(i) would acquire adhivasi rights under that section unless he was covered by the third class of cases mentioned in Clause (h) of Section 21(1) and his landlord was a disabled person. Where a person is a tenant of sir and claims adhivasi rights u/s 20(a)(i), it is only permissible to see whether, Under Clause (h) of Section 21(1), he is tenant of Sir land referred to in Sub-section (a) of Clause (i) of the Explanation u/s 16 and has as such acquired asami rights; but it is not permissible to consider whether he should be treated as a recorded occupant and whether, as a record occupant. He has acquired asami rights u/s 21(1)(h). In order to defeat the acquisition of adhivasi rights under the various provisions of Section 20, it is only legitimate to consider whether, under the corresponding provision of Section 21(1)(h), he has acquired asami rights. Therefore, all that was necessary to consider in the present cases was whether the contesting Respondents, who were admittedly the tenants of Sir and who admittedly had not acquired bhumidhari, sirdari or hereditary tenancy rights, acquired asami rights u/s 21(1)(h) by virtue of the fact that they were tenants of sir land referred to in Sub-clause (a) of Clause (i) of the Explanation u/s 16. The Dy. Director of Consolidation as well as the Joint Director of Consolidation have rightly held that, since the land holders paid a land revenue of more than Rs. 250/- per annum, the sir land was not covered by Sub-clause (a) of Clause (i) of the Explanation u/s 16. In fact, this part of the decision of the Dy. The Dy. Director of Consolidation as well as the Joint Director of Consolidation have rightly held that, since the land holders paid a land revenue of more than Rs. 250/- per annum, the sir land was not covered by Sub-clause (a) of Clause (i) of the Explanation u/s 16. In fact, this part of the decision of the Dy. Director of Consolidation and of the Joint Director of Consolidation has not been challenged before us. The only question raised was whether the contesting Respondents could, for purposes of Section 21(1)(h), be treated as recorded occupants and as such recorded occupants, be deemed to have acquired asami rights. 6. Before the Joint Director of Consolidation an argument was raised that the words "except as provided in Sub-clause (i) of Clause (b)" occurring in Section 20(a)(i) indicate that a tenant of sir, who is recorded as a tenant of sir in 1356 Fasli, acquires adhivasi rights not u/s 20(a)(i) but u/s 20(b)(i) as a recorded occupant. This contention was rightly repelled by the Joint Director. What these words indicate is that, if A is the tenant of sir, on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting and B is recorded as occupant of Sir in 1356 Fasli, then B will acquire adhivasi rights in preference to A. These words do not mean that a person, who is, in fact, a tenant of sir and who is so recorded in the records of 1356 Fasli, will not acquire adhivasi rights u/s 20(a)(i) but will do so u/s 20(b)(i). A tenant of sir can acquire adhivasi rights only u/s 20(a)(i) and he can acquire asami rights only if he falls under the first part of Section 21(1)(h). 7. In our opinion, a person, who is, in fact, a tenant of sir and claims adhivasi rights u/s 20(a)(i), can acquire such rights only under this provision and even if he can be considered to be a recorded occupant by virtue of the fact that he is entered as a tenant of sir in the records of 1356 Fasli, he cannot acquire adhivasi rights u/s 20(b)(i). The acquisition of adhivasi rights by him u/s 20(a)(i) can only be defeated if it is shown that he is a tenant of sir land referred to in Sub-clause (a) of Clause (i) of the Explanation u/s 16 and his land holder was, on the relevant dates, a disabled person in which case he will acquire only asami rights u/s 21(1)(h). The question whether he can be considered to be a recorded occupant or not does not affect the acquisition of adhivasi or asami rights by him. 8. The Dy. Director of Consolidation and the Joint Director of Consolidation have rightly held that the contesting Respondents in these two writ petitions acquired adhivasi rights on the coming into force of the Act and subsequently, became sirdars. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Since no one has appeared to contest the writ petitions, there will be no order as to costs.