JUDGMENT

Chamier, J. - The appellant sued in a Revenue Court for the ejectment of the respondent from plots Nos. 659 and 661. The Assistant Collector decreed the claim as regards No. 661 but dismissed it as regards No. 659 on the ground that the respondent had acquired a right of occupancy therein. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner who, after holding that the land had been originally let at a light runt for pasturage, and had only recently been cultivated by the respondent, ruled that the suit did not lie in a Revenue Court for the ejectment of a tenant from such land, and that the appellant's proper course was to give the respondent notice to quit, and, if he did not comply with it, to sue him in the Civil Court. The appellant then brought in the Court of a Munsif the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. The Munsif dismissed it on a ground which; I am unable to understand. His decision was confirmed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Bareilly, who appears to have been of opinion that, whether the land was originally let for pasturage or not, it is now, and was, at the date of the institution of this suit, being cultivated by the respondent, and is therefore, a hol