JUDGMENT S. K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a second appeal under Section 331 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the judgement and decree of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 19-1-1989 dismissing the appeal of the appellant filed against the Judgement and decree of the trial court dated 31-10-1974 through which the suit under Section 202/209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was decreed by trial court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the Gaon Sabha brought a suit for the ejectment of the defendant appellants Mehar Chandra and Khem Chandra with the allegation that the defendants had been granted a patta for asami rights on 23.4.1971 for a period of one year about the land in dispute and in spite of the fact that the patta had expired on 24. 4. 1972, the defendants continued to remain in possession hence their possession was unlawful and they were liable to ejectment. 3. The defence was that on term had been mentioned in the patta of asami rights, hence the suit was incompetent and that the defendants were valid asamis and had been paying rent continuously to the Gaon Sabha and were not liable to ejectment. 4. The trial court rejected the defence plea and decreed the suit. 5. The appeal filed against that Judgement was also dismissed, hence the defendants came up to this court in appeal. Meanwhile Section 122-B (4-F) had already come into force, hence it was pleaded on behalf of the appellants that by virtue of the provisions of this amended section the defendants were not liable to ejectment as they had become sirdars by virtue of their possession on 30. 6. 1975, as the other conditions mentioned in the aforesaid section were fulfilled. The learned Member remanded the appeal to the learned Addl. Commissioner with the direction that the question of giving benefit under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act be also considered by him and in case it was found necessary the case could be remanded to the trial court as well, for a proper decision including the point of the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The appeal was, therefore, re-heard by the learned Additional Commissioner but he came to the conclusion that the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was available only to a trespasser and not to an Asami and he dismissed the appeal. This appeal has been preferred against the same Judgement and it has come up for hearing before this court. 6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that even though Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 had been added not indicated when the suit was filed but since it had been enacted during the pendency of the appeal before the Board, hence the provisions of this section cannot be ignored and the benefit of this section must be given to the defendants if they are entitled to the same. Fie further argued that the wordings of this section do not restrict the benefit only to a trespasser but even an asami will also be entitled to the same and he can also be invested with superior rights as envisaged in this section. 8. Learned D.G.C. (R), on the other hand, mainly stressed on the point that the provisions of Section 122-B (4-F) can be applied only to a trespasser and no benefit can be earned by an Asami. He argued that Section 122 (1) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 clearly only relates to a trespasser and, therefore, the provisions of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 also would relate to a trespasser and not to any other class of occupation. Both the parties could not produce any ruling in support of their contentions. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the legal consequences of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 as brought in the statute by Amendment Act No, XXXV of 1976. Both the parties could not produce any ruling in support of their contentions. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the legal consequences of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 as brought in the statute by Amendment Act No, XXXV of 1976. This section is reproduced as follows : - Section 122-B (4-F) "Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing Sub-Sections, where any agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is in occupation of any land vested in a Gaon Sabha under Section 117 (not being land mentioned in Section 132) having occupied it from before June 30, 1975 and the land so occupied together with land, if any held by him from before the said date as Bhumidhar, sirdari or asami does not exceed 1.25 hectares (3.125 acres), then no action under this section shall be taken by the land Management Committee or the Collector against such labourer, and it shall be deemed that he has been admitted as sirdar of that land under section 195" 9. The very opening words of this provision are 'Notwithstanding any thing in the foregoing Sub-Section' Which clearly indicate that this provision has been included in order to ignore all earlier provisions of section 122(1) to (4-E) of U.P Act No. 1 of the Act no.1 of the Act and the rights of the occupants have to be determined only in accordance with This amended Sub-section itself does not distinguish between the mode of occupation since only a single word of occupation of any land has been brought in the subject matter which clearly shows that distinction between an asami or a trespasser was intended to have been made by the legislature while incorporating this Sub-section and, therefore, all persons who satisfy the other conditions of this Sub-section are entitled to the benefit thereof if they were in occupation of the land in any capacity whether as a trespasser or as asami. 10. 10. It does not seem plausible that the Legislature could think of protecting the rights of a trespasser alone and would have ignored the Asamis The object of introducing this sub-section was to protect the interest of weaker sections, hence whether a member belonging to a scheduled caste was a trespasser or was an asami on the relevant date his rights were protected through this amendment and he could not be ejected Obviously the rights of an asami are inferior to that of a sirdar or a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights, hence if other conditions of the sub-section are met there is no question as to why the benefit of this Sub-section could or should not be given to an asami when according to learned D.G.C.(R) even a trespasser is entitled to the same in such circumstances I do not agree with the finding recorded by the learned Additional Commissioner that an asami is not entitled to the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) and only a trespasser can claim benefit thereof His finding, therefore, deserves to be reversed. 11. I am, therefore, in perfect agreement with the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the defendants of this case can also claim the benefit of the sub-section if they satisfy the other conditions imposed therein. 12. Since the suit had been contested before the incorporation of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 hence the defendants were not in a position to take up any plea with respect to this Sub-section in their written statement as a consequence thereof no issue could be framed to that effect. It is, therefore, necessary that the suit be remanded back to the trial court so that the defendants may amend their written statement and proper issues including the question of the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) may be struck and the case may be re-heard and re-decided after giving full opportunity to both the parties to adduce their evidence. 13. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed The Judgements and decrees passed by both the courts below are set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial court to proceed with the same in accordance with the observations made above.