AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.C. Banerji, J.—This application for revision is untenable.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, who is the landlord, granted him a lease of certain land; that he was in possession under the lease; that he had grown crops on the land, and that the defendant wrong-fully out down and misappropriated the crops. He claimed the value of the crops as damages. The suit was clearly cognizable by the Civil Court. The plaintiff did not allege wrongful dispossession and the suit was not a suit for compensation for wrongful dispossession. The plaintiff is in possession and all that he claims is the value of the crops which the defendant forcibly ant down. The suit, not being one for compensation for wrongful dispossession, could not be brought in the Revenue Court u/s 79 of the Tenancy Act. I dismiss the application with costs.