( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the division bench of the High court of Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 627 of 1965 dated 28/11/1972. Admittedly the appellant and his brother Bhagwan Singh are the coparceners of the agricultural lands measuring 20 bighas and 5 biswas in Khata No. 85 in Village Tejpur, Pargana Mursan, Tehsil Hathras, Districtaligarh in the State of U. P. On his own showing while he was undergoing life sentence for an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, his brother Bhagwan Singh had leased the property to the respondents in 1946 and ever since they remained in possession as cultivating sub-tenants. After his release on 15/05/1958, the appellant instituted proceedings before the consolidation authorities for possession of the lands. Ultimately, the division bench held in the impugned judgment that if the lease was granted by Bhagwan Singh in favour of the respondents, then they become the sub-tenants and thereby they became the bhoomidhars under U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, for short the Act. Even if it was to be held that the lease was invalid, then they become Adivasis by operation of Ss. 20 (b) (ii) of the Act. In either event, their possession cannot be said to be unlawful, nor can they be said to be trespassers. Thereby they became entitled to remain as tenants with the rights accrued under the Act. ( 2 ) SHRI Desh Bandhu Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, strenuously contended that in view of the finding recorded by the consolidation tribunals that the lease was invalid as against the appellant, the finding that they are Adivasis is not tenable after the expiry of 5 years of sub-lease and the right for continuance as tenants should extinguish and become extinct by operation of Section 47 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939, and that, therefore, the division bench had committed manifest error of law in reversing the judgment of the Single Judge. We find no force in the contention. The High court recorded the finding thus: "the Deputy Director of Consolidation repelled the claim of the appellant to the plots in dispute, on finding that the respondents were recorded in 1356-F as sub-tenants and they were in possession in that year 1359-F as well. We find no force in the contention. The High court recorded the finding thus: "the Deputy Director of Consolidation repelled the claim of the appellant to the plots in dispute, on finding that the respondents were recorded in 1356-F as sub-tenants and they were in possession in that year 1359-F as well. The respondents came on to the plots under a lease executed by the appellants younger brother. They claimed sub-tenancy. The appellants case was that the sub-lease was invalid. IN either view, the order of the Deputy Director holding that the respondent had become sirdars is unassailable. If the lease was valid, the respondents were unlawful sub-tenants and they became Adivasis under Section 20 (a) (ii) of the Zamindari Abolition Act. If the lease was invalid, as pointed out by the appellant, then they were in possession as trespassers. Entry in their favour in 1356-F will be deemed to be of an occupant, giving Adivasi rights to them under clause (b) (ii) of Section 20. " ( 3 ) ASSUMING the first contention, as pointed out by the division bench of the High court, is not tenable, even otherwise also by operation of Section 20 (b) (ii) they become Adivasis as is clear by its bare reading, which reads thus: "20. Every person who. . . (B) was recorded as occupant,. . . (I) * * (II) of any land to which Section 16 applies in the Khasra or Khatauni of 1356 Fasli prepared under S. 28 and 33 respectively of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901 U. P. Act III of 1901, but who was not in possession in the year 1356-F. , shall, unless he has become a Bhumidhar of the land 434 under Ss. (2 of Section 18 or an Asami under clause (h) of Section 21, be called Adivasi of the land and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to take or retain possession thereof. " ( 4 ) A bare reading of this provision makes it demonstrably self-evident that a person in possession even dehors the lease in the year 1356-F 1946 and remains in possession by the date of vesting under the Act, becomes an Adivasi. Thereby he is entitled to take or retain possession thereof under the Act subject to the operation of the provisions thereof. Thereby he is entitled to take or retain possession thereof under the Act subject to the operation of the provisions thereof. Therefore, the finding of the High court in this behalf is perfectly legal and does not warrant any interference. ( 5 ) THE further contention that by operation of Section 47 of the Tenancy Act, on expiry of 5 years the right of the sub-tenant gets extinct is untenable as the lease was subsequent to the Tenancy Act and consequently Section 47 becomes inapplicable. ( 6 ) IN the result the appeal fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.