( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of two suits instituted by Kedar Nath, plaintiff-respondent, for recovery of possession over a number of plots in village Kundri and for damages. One of them was against Soman and three others and related to nine plots measuring 3. 15 acres and Rs. 400 damages. The other was against Soman alone and related to two plots measuring 4. 9 acres and bs. 200 damages. The plaintiff claimed to be a hereditary tenant of the lands in suit. He characterized the defendants as trespassers who had entered into occupation since 1351f. The defendants contended that they were sub-tenants of over thirty-two years standing since the time of plaintiffs cousin, Indarjit, and that the plaintiff took over the plots from the aforesaid tenant-in-chief under some arrangement in 1351 and acknowledged the defendants sub-tenancy on the same rent as before, namely, ES. 61 per annum; and that the suit for possession and damages was not maintainable in the civil Court. The issue of subtenancy was referred to the revenue Court and was decided both by that Court and the Court of appeal against the defendants contention. The Courts below also agreed in deciding the other issues against the defendants. The latter have come up now by way of second appeal.

( 2 ) THE appellants learned counsel has raised two contentions on behalf of his clients :

(1) That the suit was not cognizable by the Revenue Court, and (2) That the appellants were sub-tenants and entitled to the benefits of Section 47 (4) read with section 295-A, U. P. Act.

( 3 ) THE second contention, in my opinion, has no force. Section 47 (4) makes an exception to the general rule enunciated in Sub-section (1) in favour of sub-leases made after 1st January 1902. It lays down that if a tenant-in-chief surrenders or abandons a holding or dies without leaving an heir, all covenants of the sub-lease shall he binding and enforceable as between the tenants landholder and the sub-tenant for the remainder of the term of the lease or for five years whichever period may be shorter, on the rent on which he held under the tenant or at the rent at which the tenant held the land if that rent be more than the rent paid to him by the sub-tenant. The defendants have failed to prove that they were sub-tenants with any unexpired period of tenancy. The utmost length to which it may be possible to go to uphold their rights is that they were sub-tenants from year to year of Indarjit who surrendered the holding in 1851f, corresponding to 1942-43. It follows that their sub-tenancy came to an end with the surrender. Section 295-A merely provides that all subtenants would be entitled to retain possession over their holdings for five years from the date of commencement of the Amending Act 10 of 1947. The section could have no operation so far as tenancies already extinguished are concerned.

( 4 ) ON the point of jurisdiction, the appellants, in my judgment, are entitled to succeed. The decision of the Courts below was obviously founded on the Full Bench case of Ori Lal v. Ganeshi, 1947 oudh w. N. 42, which lays down that a suit by a tenant who is dispossessed of the whole or portion of his holding by a person other than those referred to Section 183, U. P. Tenancy Act, lies in a Civil Court and is not a suit as contemplated by Section 180 of the Act. The view taken thus was that word tenant used in Section 180 in the expression without the consent of the person entitled to admit him as tenant did not include a sub-tenant. The law on the subject was, however, altered by substantial amendments of Section 180 of the Act by Act 10 of 1947. Explanation 2 now appended to 8. 180 makes it clear that a tenant entitled to sublet the plot of land in accordance with the provisions of law for the time being in force may maintain a suit under that section against a person taking or remaining in possession of the plot otherwise than in circumstances for which provision is made in Section 183. Section 242 provid