1. This is a reference from the City Munsif of Jaunpur en the question of whether a certain suit for possession of a fixed-rate holding lay within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or of the Revenue Court. The plaintiff sued for possession and compensation for wrongful dispossession by the defendant whom he alleged was a trespasser. The defendant pleaded that he was a tenant of a half share in this holding, and had been in possession as tenant paying rental for that half share to the zemindar, and further pleaded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The suit, therefore, is one between rival claimants to a tenancy. Under the former Tenancy Act II of 1901, s 79 was a remedy for a tenant, who was ejected otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act by his landholder. No provision in that Act existed for a suit between rival tenants, and accordingly such suits lay within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. In the present Tenancy Act III of 1926, the corresponding Section 99 has been altered to include, in our opinion, a suit like the present between rival claimants to a tenancy. This section now provides: 'Any tenant or rent-free grantee ejected from, or prevented from obtaining possession of, his holding or any part thereof, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act, by:
(a) his landholder or any person claiming as landholder to have a right to eject him, or
(b) any person claiming through such landholder or person, whether as tenant or otherwise,
may sue the person, so ejecting him or keeping him out of possession....
The provisions in Section 99 (1) (b) clearly cover the present case and, therefore, the present suit lies within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court, and under the provisions of Section 230 the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. The learned Munsif has doubts on the subject, because he considers that it is necessary for the plaint to set out that the defendant was claiming through the landholder or claiming to be sole tenant in order for the provisions of Section 99 to apply. We consider that he is mistaken in this view, because Section 99 (1) (b) refers to 'any person claiming through such landholder'. In our view it is sufficient that the written statement of the defendant should put forward the claim that the defendant claims through the landholder. It does not matter whether the plaintiff does mention defendant as so claiming, or whether the plaint alleges that the defendant is a mere trespasser. This principle has already been laid down by a Bench of this Court in a ruling reported as Ram Partab Singh v. Chhotey Lal Singh : AIR1928All269 . See also Sahdeo v. Badhai : AIR1929All571 . Let the reference be returned to the learned City Munsif with this ruling. The defendant will receive costs of this Court.