1. We consider it unnecessary to enter into the various point raised by the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant, because we are of opinion that the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court. That the relation between the parties was that of landlord and tenant is admitted on all hands, and the plaintiff's case, even if fully admitted, amounts to a contention that by reason of the patta of 13th November 1881, his tenancy-at-will was converted into a perpetual tenancy at the fixed annual rent of Rs. 79, and that, in breach of the conditions of the patta, the defendants ejected him on the 5th June 1882. On the other hand, the defendants, whilst denying the execution of the patta, did not deny that at the time of his ejectment the plaintiff was their tenant, and the substantial part of the defence' amounted to the contention that his ejectment was not wrongful. Neither party asserted any rights which are inconsistent with or go beyond the relation of landlord and tenant, and the dispute thus raised could therefore appropriately form the subject-matter of an 'application for the recovery of the occupancy of any land of which a tenant has been wrongfully dispossessed,' within the meaning of Clause (n), Section 95 of the Rent Act (XII of 1881), which must therefore be understood to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in this ease. The rulings on which the learned Subordinate Judge has relied for the contrary opinion are not applicable to the present case. In Muhammad Abu Jafar v. Wali Muhammad I.L.R. 3 All. 81 the defendants distinctly asserted a right in themselves which would be wholly inconsistent with the relation of landlord and tenant, whilst in Sukhdaik Misr v. Karim Chaudhri I.L.R. 3 All. 521 the plaintiff distinctly stated that the defendants were simple trespassers wrongfully retaining possession after the expiration of the lease, and similar was the case in Kanahia v. Ram Kishen I.L.R. 2 All. 429. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the relation of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties in the present case, because, by reason of the ejectment of the 5th June 1882, the plaintiff ceased to be a tenant of the defendants, but that ejectment is stated to be the cause of action for this suit, and the relation of landlord and tenant being admitted to have existed between the parties at that time, the plaintiff's complaint amounts to a claim such as would form the matter of an application under Clause (n), Section 95 of the Rent Act. This view of the law is not inconsistent with the ratio decidendi of either of the two contrary opinions expressed by the learned Judges in the Full Bench case of Shimbhu Narain Singh v. Bachcha I.L.R. 2 All. 200. In the present case, however, it appears that the relation of landlord and tenant being admitted to have existed at the time, the defendants, as landholders, applied according to law to eject the plaintiff by service of notice, and the plaintiff's objections to ejectment being overruled by the Revenue Court, he was ejected from the holding. The matter was one exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court, and since in the present case the pleadings of the parties do not raise any question of title such as would be inconsistent with, or in excess of, the relation of landlord and tenant, the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court.
2. For these reasons we uphold the decrees of the lower Courts dismissing the suit, and dismiss this appeal with costs.