JUDGMENT : RICHARDS, J.:— The facts of this case as they appear from the plaint, and judgment of the lower appellate Court, are as follows:— The defendant Nos. 1 to 7 are zemindars; defendants Nos. 8, 9 and 10 do not appear and are mere formal parties. There was existing a tenancy of which one Gopi Ram, defendant No. 8, was recorded as tenants It is alleged, however, and it is possibly the fact, that Pershad Rain and Lalji Ram were also tenants. In other words, that Gopi Ram, Pershad Ram and Lalji Ram between them represented the tenants of a tenancy at fixed rates. The rent due to the zamindars in respect of the tenancy fell into arrear and the zamindars got a decree against their recorded tenant, namely, Gopi Ram, and under the new Tenancy Act recovered possession of the holding. The present plaintiff says that although Gopi Ram was alone recorded as tenant, Pershad Ram and Lalji Ram were also tenants entitled to one-third interest each, and that at an auction purchase in execution of a decree obtained by him against two of these tenants, namely, Lalji Ram and Pershad Ram, he became purchaser of one-third ??? enancy, and accordingly he is and was at the time of the ??? tenant to the zamindars of one-third of the tenancy which Gopi Ram was recorded. In the present suit he claims a number of reliefs, but in reality what he wants is to be restored to possession of the holding which was ejected in 1902, on the ground that he was wrongly ejected and that the proceedings by the zamindars in no way bound him. It does not appear from his plaint that he came to be actually ejected by virtue of proceed-ings to wich he was no party. I strongly suspect that he never was in possession of the holding at all. However this may be, the appearing defendants meet him with the objection that the suit is not cognizable by the Civil Court, and that his remedy lay in the Revenue Court under section 79 of the N.W.P. Tenancy Act, 1906 and these grounds both of the Courts below dismissed the plaintiff suit and in my judgment they were perfectly right. However this may be, the appearing defendants meet him with the objection that the suit is not cognizable by the Civil Court, and that his remedy lay in the Revenue Court under section 79 of the N.W.P. Tenancy Act, 1906 and these grounds both of the Courts below dismissed the plaintiff suit and in my judgment they were perfectly right. No matter how the present suit has been dressed up, it is in reality a suit that can only be sustained upon the ground that the plaintiff is a tenant who has been ejected otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of Act II of 1901. The whole policy of the legislature is that suits and questions arising between landlords and tenants should be decided in the Revenue Court, and in my opinion it would be a great misfortune if a plaintiff by claiming a variety of reliefs could come into the Civil Court and set aside proceedings already had in the Court which the Legislature considers best suited to the trial of such suits. 2. It has also been urged that the case having come up upon appeal to the District Judge, he ought, under the provisions of sections 196 and 197 of the Tenancy Act, to have dealt with the case. In my judgment section 196 only applies to a case which has been instituted in the wrong Court, but on appeal comes before the Court to which an appeal would have lain if the suit were rightly instituted in the prescribed Court.’ In the present ??? appeal would have lain not to, the District Judge but to commissioner. Section 79 comes under Schedule 4, group C, which are the suits triable by the Assistant Collector. ??? first Class in which an appeal lies to the Revenue Court. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs, including in this Court fees on the higher scale.