1. There is nothing in this case.
2. The plaintiffs in the Court of first instance are the applicants here. They alleged in the plaint that they were the proprietors of certain lands, that one Tika had plainted a grove over the lands, that Tika died without heir and the grove went by escheat to the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs from time to time let out the grove to different persons and lastly they let it out to the defendant-respondent that they did not any longer want that the defendant should hold the grove and that therefore, they asked for his ejectment. As for the rent it was alleged in the plaint that the defendant handed over a portion of the produce of the grove as the rent.
3. The defendant pleaded, inter alia that he was a grove-holder and not a mere tenant and that the suit was not cognizable by the civil Court.
4. Both the Courts below have held that on the plaintiffs' own allegations the suit was not cognizable by the civil Court.
5. I have no doubt that the Courts below were right. The suit was one for ejectment of a tenant. A tenant is defined as a person by whom rent is payable. Rent includes whatever is paid or rendered on account of, among other matters, groves. On the plaintiffs' own allegations, therefore, the defendant is a tenant of the plaintiffs and the suit for his ejectment must be brought in the revenue Court land not in the civil Court.
6. The application fails and is hereby dismissed with costs which will include counsel's fees in this Court on the higher scale.