1. The suit in this case was instituted under Section 12 of Act VIII of 1865 for recovery of possession of the laud from which the plaintiff, a ryot, was ejected by the landholder in pursuance of an order obtained under Section 10 of Act VIII of 1865 in consequence of the plaintiff's failure to accept a patta which he was directed to accept by the Revenue court. The plaintiff claimed also damages sustained by him' in consequence of the unlawful eviction. The order of eviction was passed by the court on the 20 January 1906 and was carried out on the 22nd contrary to the provisions of Section 70 of the Act which enacts that the tenant shall not be evicted before the expiration of thirty days from the date of the order. The District Court held that the suit was not maintainable under Section 12 of the Act and in so holding it was right, as that section only provides that no tenant shall be ejected without an order under Section 10 or Section 41, but the learned vakil for the appellants contends that as the eviction was unlawful, the suit is maintainable in so far as the claim for damages is concerned under Section 49 of the Act, which provides that 'any person deeming himself aggrieved by any proceedings taken under colour of this Act shall be at liberty to seek redress by filing a summary suit for damages before the Collector.' This contention must prevail. Mr. Seshagiri Iyer, for the respondent, contends that Section 49 is not applicable to the case as the expression 'proceedings' must be understood to mean ' proceedings taken by a public officer or a court ' and no proceedings of a public officer are impeached by the plaintiff as improper, and he refers to Section 76 which speaks of a judgment of a Collector in proceedings under this Act. We cannot accept this argument. Section 76 shows no more than that there are ' proceedings' under the Act in which a Collector may pass ' a judgment.' It does not show that there are no proceedings in which he would not do so. The Act authorises the landholder also to take several proceedings without resort to the Collector. He can tender pattas and distrain property for arrears of rent on his own responsibility and he maybe guilty of various illegalities and irregularities in doing so. He may distrain property when there are no arrears, or without properly tendering a pattah which the tenant is bound to accept. He may distrain without making a demand of the arrears as required by law. He may act in violation of the various provisions relating to distraint. Suits have been entertained in all these cases. See Rajah Chelikani Venkata Gopala Nayanim Garu v. Narayanaswami Reddi I.L.R. (1904) M. 210; Velagabai Ramakrishnayya v. Suranini Papayya Apparow I.L.R. (1904) M. 430. We must hold that the claim for damages is maintainable. We reverse the decrees of the lower courts and remand the suit to the court of first instance for fresh disposal according to law, in so far as it relates to the claim for damages. Bach party will bear his own costs throughout up to date.