Judgment VENKATACHALA, J.:- In these appeals by special leave directed against the common judgment and order dated 8th December, 1972 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, rendered in Special Appeals Nos. 948-949 of 1967, a question of somewhat importance, which arises for our decision, is as to whether a widow belonging to a class of disabled persons under Section 157 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 the UPZA&LR Act could be regarded as a landholder envisaged under Section 21(l)(h) respecting her Sir lands, which a thekadar under a thekanama executed by her had let out for occupation and cultivation by tenants prior to 9th April, 1947 and which were allowed by the thekadar to continue in such occupation and cultivation on 9th August, 1947, by receiving yearly rents from the tenants. 2. Material facts which have led to the need to decide the said question in the present appeals, could be stated thus: That on 18th November, 1933, Smt. Khema Kunwar, respondent No. 1 in these appeals as the widow of Nathu Singh succeeded to his Sir lands --- plots 1, 6 and. 1063 among others, of Village Barai M. Khara, Pargana Ujhani, District Budaun. That on 12th December, 1939, she executed a thekanama in favour of one Ganga Singh, by which he was put in physical possession of the said Sir lands, enabling him as a thekadar not only to cultivate those lands personally for over a period of twenty years subject to payment to her theka money of Rs. 355 per annum, but also to lease them for cultivation to tenants and receive annual rents from them during that period. No sooner Ganga Singh got possession of the said Sir lands under the thekanama from Smt. Khema Kunwar, he as thekadar, leased Plot Nos. 1, 6 to Harnam Singh, the appellant in C.A. No. 142 of 1976 and Plot No. 1063 to Mohar Singh, the appellant in C.A. No. 143 of 1976, on yearly rents and put them in possession of those plots in the year 1940 for their cultivation. Eversince the thekadar received yearly rents from Harnam Singh and Mohar Singh, as they were his tenants or lessees. In the year 1960, when Harnam Singh, who was in occupation of Plot Nos. Eversince the thekadar received yearly rents from Harnam Singh and Mohar Singh, as they were his tenants or lessees. In the year 1960, when Harnam Singh, who was in occupation of Plot Nos. 1 and 6 and Mohar Singh, who was in occupation of Plot No. 1063, from the year 1940 paying annual rents as tenants to thekadar, Ganga Singh, found that they were shown as Asamis in respect of the said plots in the Basic Years Records, they filed objections under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - the UPCH Act before the jurisdictional Consolidation Officer, claiming that they should be shown in Basic Years Records as Adhivasis respecting plots in their occupation. Sint. Khema Kunwar, who did not dispute the fact that Harnam Singh and Mohar Singh were occupants of the plots 1, 6 and 1063 contested their claim for recording them as Adhivasis of those lands in Basic Years Records. The Consolidation Officer by his judgment and order dated 26th September, 1961 dismissed the objection raised by Harnam Singh and Mohar Singh. That order, when was carried in appeals by Harnam Singh and Mohar Singh before the Assistant Settlement Officer, their claim for recording their names in the Basic Years Records as Adhivasis was upheld by his judgment and order dated 13th June, 1963. Smt. Khema Kunwar, although impugned the order of the Asstt. Settlement Officer in her appeal filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, and in her revision filed before the Joint Director of Consolidation, she did not succeed. So also she did not succeed in her Writ Petitions filed in the matter before the High Court of Allahabad, in that a learned single Judge of that Court dismissed those Writ Petitions by his common judgment and orders dated 4th September, 1967. But her Special Appeals filed against the said common judgment and orders of the learned single Judge before the same High Court were allowed by a common judgment and order dated 8th December, 1972 of a Division Bench of that Court, upholding her contention that the appellants herein were Asamis under Section 2 l(l)(h) of the UPZA&LR Act and not Adhvasis under Section 20(l)(b) thereof. It is that common judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court which has been impugned by Harnam Singh and Mohar Singh by filing the present appeals by special leave. It is that common judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court which has been impugned by Harnam Singh and Mohar Singh by filing the present appeals by special leave. 3. The contention raised before us by Mrs. Rachna Gupta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants was that even if Smt. Khema Kunwar, widow of Nathu Singh belonged to a class of disabled persons under Section 157 of the UPZA&LR Act, the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be sustained since it was based on Its wrong view that Smt. Khema Kunwar was land-holder envisaged under Section 21 (1)(h) of that Act. Her contention, in other words, was that Sint. Khema Kunwar, when had under a thekanama executed by her in the year 1933 in favour of Ganga Singh had granted to him as her thekadar the right to lease out her Sir lands in favour of the tenants and receive rents from them and when accordingly her Sir lands, the said plots had beep leased out by that thekadar in favour of the appellants and given for their occupation and cultivation long prior to 9th Apri1, 1947 and the appellants were allowed to continue in occupation of such lands by the thekadar on receiving rents from them even on 9th April, 1947, she (Smt. Khema Kunwar) could not have been the land-holder of such lands, envisaged under Section 21(l)(h) of the UPZA&LR Act, as has been held by the Division Bench. Whether the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in the present appeals, calls to be upheld, is indeed the question which now needs our consideration and decision. 4. On 12th December, 1939 Smt. Khema Kunwar, who was the Sirdar of the aforesaid Sir lands (plots), it is not disputed, executed a thekanama of even date in favour of Ganga Singh, making him thekadar in respect of them. Under that "thekanama, it is also not disputed, the thekadar was given the right to cultivate the said plots for a period of 20 years, on payment of theka money of Rs. 355,/per annum. Under that very thekanama, it is again not disputed, that the thekadar was given the further right to lease the said plots for cultivation to tenants of his choice and to receive rents from such tenants. 355,/per annum. Under that very thekanama, it is again not disputed, that the thekadar was given the further right to lease the said plots for cultivation to tenants of his choice and to receive rents from such tenants. It transpires that on the execution of that thekanama the thekadar who got possession of the said plots from Smt. Khema Kunwar, leased them to the appellants herein for cultivation as his tenants and received annual rents from them eversince. The right of leasing the said plots in favour of tenants and the right of receiving rents from them were the rights conferred by Smt. Khema Kunwar in favour of the thekadar Ganga Singh under thekanama executed and registered by her, stood unrebutted before the Consolidation Authorities who have concluded accordingly. The Engilsh officially translated copy of thekanama produced for our perusal fully supports such conclusion. 5. The United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939 - the UPT Act when came into force on January 19, 1940 the appellants were in occupation of those plots of lands as tenants and cultivating them by paying rents to the thekadar. The said tenancies created by thekadar in favour of the appellants being agricultural tenancies, came to be regulated by the UPT Act. While under clause (7) of Section 3 of the UPT Act holding is defined to include the theka area held by a thekadar, under clause (24) thereof the thekadar is defined to mean a farmer or other lessee of the rights in land of a proprietor, who has also, in particular the right to receive rents or profits. Section 209 of the UPT Act declares that the farm or lease of a thekadar is a theka, the person who grants it is the lessor, and the area to which it relates is the theka area. Section 211 of that Act declares that the thekadar may exercise, during the period of his theka all rights of the lessor under the Act even if such rights were not conferred upon him under the terms of the thekanama. So also Sections 212 to 222 thereof refer to regulation of the relationship of thekadar with his lessor and his lessee. Further, under clause (11) thereof a land-holder is defined to mean a person to whom rent is payable while under clause (23) thereof tenant is defined to mean a person by whom rent is payable. So also Sections 212 to 222 thereof refer to regulation of the relationship of thekadar with his lessor and his lessee. Further, under clause (11) thereof a land-holder is defined to mean a person to whom rent is payable while under clause (23) thereof tenant is defined to mean a person by whom rent is payable. Furthermore, under clause (18) thereof rent is defined to mean whatever is, in cash or kind, payable on account of the use or occupation of land. 6. From the said definition clauses and provisions of the UPT Act, it becomes clear that Ganga Singh, in whose favour the aforesaid thekanama was executed by Smt. Khema Kunwar, respecting the aforesaid plots, was not only the thekadar under that Act but also a land-holder in respect of those plots in that he was receiving rents from the tenants who were occupying those plots and cultivating them. 7. But, after the coming into force of the UPZA&LR Act when a notification referred to in Section 4 thereof was published in the Gazette all rights, titles and interest of all intermediaries in every estate including the aforesaid plots of lands ceased and vested in the State of U. P. free from encumbrances. Intermediary is defined under clause ( 12) of, Section 3 thereof to mean with reference to any estate, a proprietor, as well as, a thekadar. Section 12 thereof declares that thekadars would become hereditary tenants where the lands were in their personal cultivation on the 1st day of May, 1950. Under sub-section (2) of Section 13 thereof, it entitles such thekadar to become Asami to the Sir lands or khudkasht of the lessor on the date of the grant of the theka. However, Section 20(b) thereof says that every person who was recorded as a tenant of any land, shall, unless he has become an Asami under clause (h) of Section 21(l), be called an Adhivasi of the land. In Udai v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1990 Rev Dec 9 (10) this Court has held that a person shown in actual possession in Khasra also shall be regarded as tenant. From this it follows that a tenant shown to be in occupation of a plot of land under Record of Rights has to be regarded as a recorded occupant of such land. 8. Director of Consolidation, 1990 Rev Dec 9 (10) this Court has held that a person shown in actual possession in Khasra also shall be regarded as tenant. From this it follows that a tenant shown to be in occupation of a plot of land under Record of Rights has to be regarded as a recorded occupant of such land. 8. Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the UPZA&LR Act, which insofar as is material for deciding the question under consideration may be excerpted. It reads : "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 - (a) ....... (h) .... an occupant referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of the said section where the land-holder or if there are more than one land-holders, 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 on 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 classes mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 157; ...... shall be deemed to be an asami thereof." 9. The Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment under appeal has taken the view that the respondent herein Smt. Khema Kunwar is the land-holder referred to in clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 21, falling within one of the classes of disabled persons metioned in Section 157(l) of the Act and hence the appellants herein, who are in occupation of her aforesaid plots, are to be regarded as Asamis envisaged under the clause, although they have become tenants under the thekadar - Ganga Singh, who was receiving rents from them. 10. We find it difficult to agree with the said view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court, which has led to the rendering of its judgment under appeals. Section 3 of the UPZA&LR Act which contains definition clauses, in its clause (26) states that the words and expressions land-holder... thekadar rent... tenant.... holding.... 10. We find it difficult to agree with the said view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court, which has led to the rendering of its judgment under appeals. Section 3 of the UPZA&LR Act which contains definition clauses, in its clause (26) states that the words and expressions land-holder... thekadar rent... tenant.... holding.... not defined the Act and used in the United provinces Tenancy Act, 1939 shall have the meaning assigned to them in the U PT Act. From what is contained in the said clause (26), it becomes obvious that the word land-holder used in any of the provisions of the UPZA & LR Act including the provision in sub-section (1) of Section 21 shall carry the meaning given to it under the UPT Act. When we have referred earlier, to the definition clauses and the provisions of the UPT Act we have clearly found that the thekadar under that Act would be a land-holder in respect of Sir lands (plots) of a proprietor, if he has leased them to tenants on the basis of thekanama executed by the proprietor or Sirdar in his favour for he receives rents from such tenants. Therefore, the land-holder referred to in clause (h) of Section 21(l) of the UPZA&LR Act can only be thekadar even where he had leased Sir lands of his proprietor, because of his entitlement to receive rents from the tenants of such lands. Such being the legal position of a thekadar, question of regarding a widow who had given away her Sir lands to a thekadar under thekanama executed by her conferring full authority on the thekadar to lease to tenants such lands and to receive rents payable for them from the tenants as a landholder of such lands can never arise. Moreover, when thekadar becomes a land-holder in respect of such Sir lands leased out to tenants as thekadar, question of a proprietor continuing as their land-holder also cannot arise. Moreover, when thekadar becomes a land-holder in respect of such Sir lands leased out to tenants as thekadar, question of a proprietor continuing as their land-holder also cannot arise. Therefore, in the present case, when in respect of the aforesaid agricultural lands (plots) thekadar - Ganga Singh was the land-holder who had leased out those lands to the appellants herein and was receiving rents from them treating them as tenants, it ought not to have been held that Smt. Khema Kunwar, a person belonging to a class of disabled persons under Sec. 157(l) of the Act, was the land-holder in respect of those plots as would make the appellants herein the "Asamis" under Section 21(l)(h) of the UPZA&LR Act. On the other hand, the appellants herein, who were the tenants of those plots (lands), being occupants of them, before, after and at the time of their vesting in the State under the Act, are regarded very rightly by the Consolidation Authorities and by the learned single Judge of the High Court as persons recorded in the Records of Rights, as occupants of those plots 1, 6 and 1063 and have been rightly held to be Adhivasis of those lands under S. 20(b) of the UPZA&LR Act. 11. In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court under appeals and restore the orders of the Consolidation Authorities and the learned single Judge of the High Court which were set aside by the judgment and order under appeal. 12. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Appeals allowed. For Citation : AIR 1994 SC 2755