Raghubar Dayal, J.
1. Pheru filed a plaint in the revenue Court under Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act of 1939, alleging that Bhagwana defendant had taken forcible possession of the land without his consent, he being the occupancy tenant of that land. Later, he amended the plaint to the effect that the defendant was a zamindar entitled to realise rent and had taken possession of the land and prevented the plaintiff from occupying it. The learned Assistant Collector ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court, holding that no suit lay under Section 183, Tenancy Act against one of the landlords and that a suit against a trespasser was, according to a certain case, cognizable only by the civil Court. The plaintiff, therefore, filed his plaint in the Court of the Munsif, Gaziabad. The Munsif came to a different opinion. He thought that, as the plaint did not allege that the defendant was one of the zamindars, which was an admitted fact, the Court could not have taken that fact into consideration and that, therefore, the revenue Court had to consider the defendant as the land-holder against whom the plaintiff could have instituted the suit under Section 183, U. P. Tenancy Act. Alternatively, the Munsif thought that if one of the landlords could not be a landholder and was to be treated as a trespasser, he could be sued for ejectment under Section 180, Tenancy Act. In this view, he was inclined to differ from the view of the Oudh Chief Court in Sheo Narain v. Bishnath Singh, 1944 A. W. R. C. C. 186 : (A. I. R. (32) 1945 Oudh 118). He accordingly referred the case to this Court under Section 289, U. P. Tenancy Act.
2. We do not think it necessary to consider whether a tenant can sue one of the landlords under Section 183, U. P. Tenancy Act in the revenue Court or not. In view of the changes in the Tenancy Act, we are of opinion that this suit is to be tried in the revenue Court which alone has jurisdiction to try the same. If the defendant, one of the landlords, can be said to be a landholder, as defined in the Tenancy Act, the suit would have lain in the revenue Court under Section 183, U. P. Tenancy Act. If he cannot be said to be a landholder, he can be sued under Section 180 of the Act as amended up to date. Present Section 180 provides that
'a person taking or retaining possession of a plot of land without the consent of the person entitled to admit him to occupy such plot and otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force, shall be liable to ejectment, under this section on the suit of the person so entitled.'
Explanation 2 to Sub-section (1) of Section 180 is very clear and provides that
'a tenant entitled to sublet a plot of the land in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force may maintain a suit under this section against the person taking or retaining possession of such plot otherwise than in the circumstances for which provision is made in Section 183.'
It is, therefore, clear that the plaintiff could sue the defendant, one of the landlords, under Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act, even if he could not sue him under Section 183 of that Act.
3. We, therefore, accept the reference and order that the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper revenue Court which is competent to try this suit. The record shall be returned to the Court of the Munsif, Ghaziabad.