JUDGMENT

Mukerji, J. - This is an ex parte appeal. But Mr. Sandal has put the Court in possession of cases deciding both in favour of the view contended for by him and in favour of the view against his contention and I have, therefore, no difficulty in deciding the case.

2. The facts established are these. The respondent obtained a written lease from an occupancy tenant oh the 1st of May, 1921, it having been agreed that he would be put in possession on the 1st of July, 1921. The occupancy tenant, however, did not put the respondent in possession, but, instead, put the appellant in possession. Thereupon the respondent brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, claiming possession and mesne profits.

3. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit holding that it was cognizable by the Revenue Court alone and was, further, barred by six months' rule of limitation. The Appellate Court has decreed the suit, hence the appeal.

4. The contention for the appellant is that the respondent ought to have brought a suit u/s 79 of the Tenancy Act of 1901 and a suit in the Civil Court was not maintainable. It followed from this contention that, if Section 79 of the Tenancy Act applied, t