Ganga Nath, J.
1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them by the plaintiff, respondents for possession over 8 biswas of land in plot No. 84 by removal of the construction alleged to have been made by the defendants. Plot No. 81 is the occupancy holding of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' case was that without any right the defendants who are some of the landholders have built a house on 8 biswas. The defendants contended that the suit was barred by Section 99, Agra Tenancy Acts, and limitation. Both the lower Courts have concurrently found that the suit is not barred by Section 99, Agra Tenancy Act, as the defendants do not represent the whole body of landholders. They have relied on a ruling under the old Tenancy Act of 1901. Section 99 of the present Tenancy Act (Act 3 of 1926) has much widened the scope. Section 79 of the old Tenancy Act was confined to an ejectment by a landholder, while Section 99 of the present Act relates to a wrongful ejectment by a landholder or any person claiming as land, holder to have a right to eject or any person claiming through such landholder or person whether as tenant or otherwise. The rulings under the old Tenancy Act therefore do not apply now to cases under Section 99 of the present Tenancy Act.
2. In this case, as has been stated by the plaintiff himself in para. 6 of his plaint, the alleged constructions were made on 10th January 1928, that is, long after the present Tenancy Act came into force. It is not now necessary that a wrongful ejectment should be made by the whole body of the landholders. If a tenant is wrongfully ejected or prevented from obtaining possession of his holding or any part thereof, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Tenancy Act, by any cosharer of the landholders, Section 99 would apply and a suit would lie in the Revenue Court. In Ram Agyan Pandey v. Chatrughun Singh (1933) 20 A.I.R. All. 44 it was held:
According to Section 99, Tenancy Act of 1926, read with Section 230, a tenant ejected from his holding by his landholder or any person claiming as landholder to have a right to eject him must sue such person for possession in the Revenue Court and it is not necessary that all the proprietors of the mahal should eject a tenant in order to give jurisdiction to the Revenue Court.
3. The same view was taken in Subedar Singh v. Komal Singh : AIR1929All656 . The decision therefore of the lower Court cannot be maintained. It is therefore ordered that the appeal be allowed, the decree of the lower Court be set aside and the plaint be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper Court. The parties shall bear their own costs. Permission for Letters Patent appeal is rejected.