JUDGMENT : STANLEY, C.J.:— This appeal in our opinion fails for the following reasons. The suit was instituted in the Revenue Court before an Assistant Collector of the first class to recover a sum of Us. 94, alleged to “be due for arrears of fees payable by the defendant, a retail seller of intoxicating drugs, to the farmer of the licence of the Crown to sell those drugs. In addition to claim for fees the plaintiff also claimed damages for compensation for an alleged breach of contract on the part of the defendant in not having sold the amount of drugs which he had undertaken to sell. The Assistant Collector gave a decree to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 35 in respect of the fees claimed by him, but refused to entertain the claims for compensation on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain it. Thereupon an appeal was preferred to the District Judge, who held that the contract entered into in respect of the sale of the drugs whereby the defendant undertook to sell not less than a certain quantity in the year, was contrary to public policy, and he dismissed the appeal. A second appeal was preferred to this High Court and the learned Judge before whom it came held that the District Judge was right in the view which he took, namely, that the contract was contrary to public policy. The present appeal has been preferred to us under the provisions of the Letters Patent, the ground of appeal being that the contract for payment of compensation in case of deficiency in the quantity of articles purchased by the respondent was not opposed to public policy. We are of opinion that no appeal under the circumstances lay to the District Judge and that he had no jurisdiction to entertain it, and that consequently the appeal to the learned Judge of this Court was bound to fail. The suit was brought under the provisions of section 28 of the Excise Act of 1896. Under that section a farmer of a licence for the sale of intoxicating drugs is entitled to use the same means and process for the recovery of any arrear of fees due to him from any retail vendor as may be lawfully used by the local land-holders for the recovery of arrears of rent to them from their tenants. Under that section a farmer of a licence for the sale of intoxicating drugs is entitled to use the same means and process for the recovery of any arrear of fees due to him from any retail vendor as may be lawfully used by the local land-holders for the recovery of arrears of rent to them from their tenants. This section, it will be observed, is confined to the recovery of arrears of fees. Under the section the plaintiff is not entitled to sue in the Revenue Court for the recovery of compensation or damages in respect of a breach of contract. This being so, the Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim, advanced by the plaintiff in respect of the alleged breach of contract, and he so held, and in as much as the value of the suit for fees admittedly amounted to only Rs. 94, no appeal lay to the District Judge under the provisions of section 177 of the Tenancy Act of 1901 supplemented by section 28 of the Excise Act. The District Judge therefore had no jurisdiction ‘to entertain the appeal, nor had the learned Judge of this Court jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal. The result is that the appeal from the Assistant Collector was rightly dismissed but for reasons other than those assigned by the District Judge. We therefore dismiss the present appeal with costs including fees in this Court on the higher scale.