Ramachandra Iyer, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 6-B of Act XXV of 1955 against, an order passed for the eviction of the petitioners in O.P. No. 138 of 1959, on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore. The Respondent, who is the landlord, claimed inter alia that, as the petitioner had used a portion of the land; leased for agricultural operations for the purpose of putting a building and thus diverted the land to purposes unconnected with agriculture, he was liable to be evicted. The petitioner contended that the land was not taken on lease for agricultural purposes, but for the purpose of putting up buildings. The property leased is situate within the limits of the Goimbatore Municipality. The Madras City Tenants' Protection Act was extended to Goimbatore Town on 19th February, 1958. The petitioner pleaded that he had put up buildings on the property, and that he was entitled to the protection afforded by the enactment. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after considering elaborately the evidence adduced in the case, came to the conclusion that the lease was for agricultural purposes, and that the sheds were put up with a view to raise objections to eviction. He ordered eviction of the petitioner from the holding.
2. It is contended for the petitioner that, having regard to the fact that buildings have been put up on the land by the tenant, the Revenue Divisional Officer should have either dismissed the application for eviction, or given the relief to him under the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act. There is a misapprehension, underlying the contention as to the scope and applicability of the Madras Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act and the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act. The former applies only to agricultural tenancies : the laiter for tenancies of land tor the puroose of the tenant putting up a building thereon. It is not possible for these two enactments to apply to the same subject-matter. If the tenancy is one purely 'for agricultural purposes, the Madras City. Tenants' Protection Act will not apply even though a building to facilitate agricultural operations has been put up. If, on the other hand, the land is leased for the purpose of putting up a building by the tenant, the provisions of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act might apply. The Revenue Divisional Officer has held that the tenancy is an agricultural one. This, he is entitled to find for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction that is vested in him under Madras Act XXV of 1955. But the finding that the tenancy is agricultural is an incidental one, and it cannot be conclusive so as to operate as res judicata between the parties, if the petitioner were to raise the question as to the nature of the tenancy in a civil Court for obtaining relief under the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act. Suffice to say, that the Revenue Divisional Officer had jurisdiction to decide whether the tenancy was an. agricultural one or not, and, on the basis of the decision, to direct eviction. The remedy of the tenant, if any, is to approach the civil Court, in case the tenancy is not an agricultural one.
3. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.