( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the defendant against whom a decree for ejectment has been passed by the courts below. The connected appeal is by another defendant against whom in another suit a decree for ejectment has been passed by the courts below at the instance of the same plaintiffs. Since the same questions are involved in the two appeals they are being disposed of together.

( 2 ) THE respondents, claiming to be tenants of the plots in dispute in the two suits, sued the appellants for ejectment on the ground that they had taken unlawful possession of the plots: The suits were filed in the court of a Munsif. They were contested by the appellants on various grounds but not on the ground that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to hear and determine them. The defence failed in both the suits with the result that they were decreed. Appeals were filed against both the decrees; the appellants pleaded for the first time in the lower appellate court that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to try the suits. The lower appellate court observed that they ought to have been instituted in a civil court and that the subsequent amendment to Section 180 U. P. Tenancy Act under which such suits should be instituted in a revenue court only had no retrospective effect and did not divest the learned Munsif of his jurisdiction to determine them. It dismissed the appeals and hence these Second Appeals. These appeals came up before our brother Upadhya, who finding that there was conflict of authority on the questions of law arising in them has referred them to a Bench for decision.

( 3 ) THE main question before us is of jurisdiction. Under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure a civil court has jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. The suits in question were instituted in 1945 when the U. P. Tenancy Act No. XVII of 1939 was in force. Section 242 of it provided that:

"all suits and applications of the nature specified in the Fourth Schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court, and no court other than a revenue court shall. . . . . take cognizance of any such suit. . . . . . based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit. "

Section 180, with which we would be concerned to these appeals, is one of the sections mentioned in the Fourth Schedule. At that time when the suits were instituted Section 180 provided that:"any person taking. . . . . possession of a plot or plots of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of law. . . . . without the consent of the person entitled to admit him as tenant shall be liable to ejectment under this section on the suit of the person so entitled. "

In the definition of the word tenant it is stated that the word includes a sub-tenant except when a contrary intention appears. In Ori Lal v. Ganeshi Lal, AIR 1947 Oudh 104 (FB) (A) it was decided by a Full Bench that a suit by a tenant against a trespasser would lie in a civil court and not In a revenue court under Section 180. One of the reasons advanced in support of the view was that the word tenant in Section 180 was not Intended to Include a sub-tenant and, therefore, a tenant of a plot of land could not be said to be entitled to admit a trespasser as tenant and consequently could not sue him under that section. It was on account of this decision that the respondents Instituted the suits in the court of the learned Munsif. Since they could not sue under Section 180, the jurisdiction of a civil court was not barred. While the suits were pending section 180 was amended by the U. P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act No. X of 1947. After the amendment section 180 read as follows :"a person taking. . . . . possession of a plot of land without the consent of the person entitled to admit him to occupy such plot. . . . shall be liable to ejectment under this section on the suit of the person so ent