JUDGMENT

1. This is a defendant's appeal against an order of remand passed by the learned Civil Judge of Sultanpur, and the sole question involved in it is whether the suit was maintainable in the Civil Courts of should have been filed under the provisions of Section 108(10), Oudh Rent Act in the Rent Court. The following facts are now admitted between the parties: The plaintiff is a tenant of khata khewat No. 1 of patti Nageshwar Singh and khata khewat No. 2 of patti Mahesh Singh in village Tawakkalpur. The rent of the lands in dispute was realized by Baldeo Pande and the defendant-appellant among others in the past. The plaintiff filed the present suit for possession against the defendant on the allegation that he was dispossessed of the plots in dispute partly in 1341 Fasli and partly in 1342 Fasli by the defendant. The defence of the defendant was that the plaintiff had relinquished the land and further that the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court. A preliminary issue on the question, whether the suit was maintainable in the Civil Court or not, was framed and the learned Munsif held against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. It should be noted that on the finding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit the proper course for the trial Court was to return the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. In appeal from the decree of dismissal by the trial Court the lower Appellate Court disagreed with the view of the trial Court and held that the suit was maintainable in the Civil Court. The appeal was allowed and the suit was remanded for a fresh trial. The defendant has now come up in appeal against the order of remand passed by the lower Appellate Court. The question is whether the suit is maintain-able in the Civil Court or not. The opening words of Section 108, Oudh Rent Act, are as follows:

Except in the way of appeal as hereinafter provided, Courts other than Courts of Revenue shall not take cognizance of the following descriptions of suits, and those suits shall be heard and determined in Courts of Revenue in the manner provided in this Act, and not otherwise:

2. If the suit of the plaintiff does not fall within any of the descriptions of suits given in Section 108, then it is clear that the Civil Court will have jurisdiction to try the present suit. On behalf of the defendant it was contended that the suit fell within Clause (10) of the Section, which runs as follows:

(10) for the recovery of the occupancy of any land which has been treated by a landlord as abandoned or from which an under-proprietor or tenant has been illegally ejected by the landlord or for possession by a person in whose favour an ex-proprietary tenancy arises under Section 7-A:

3. In this case there is no dispute that the status of the plaintiff is that of a tenant but the question is whether the word "landlord" used in this clause would cover the defendent who is not the sole landlord of the plaintiff but is one of the persons to whom the plaintiff is liable to pay rent. The word "landlord" is defined in Section 3, Clause (11), Oudh Rent Act and means any person to whom an under-proprietor or a tenant is liable to pay rent. The lower Appellate Court has taken the view that where the tenant has wrongfully been dispossessed by one of the proprietors only, then it cannot be said that the dispossession has been caused by the landlord inasmuch as the tenant is not liable to pay rent to him alone but to the entire body of proprietors.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the word "landlord" as defined in the Oudh Rent Act is applicable to the entire body of proprietors to whom the rent is payable by the tenant as well as to each of those proprietors. It is further argued that the decisions of the Allahabad High Court, which were given under the Agra Tenancy Act of 1901, are not applicable to a case under the Oudh Rent Act. In our opinion, the view taken by the lower Appellate Court is correct and the app