JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. In our judgment this case must go back to the court below for trial on the merits. The plaintiffs obtained a lease from the first three defendants on the 29th of April, 1903, for a term of 4 years ending on the 31st of March, 1907. They advanced to the defendants a sum of Rs. 3,000. The lease provided that the rent payable under it to the lessors was Rs. 750 per annum. It further provided in clause (6) that on the termination of the term of the lease if arrears of rent remained due from tenants, the lessors would pay the amount of those arrears to the lessees. Clause (7) provided that if during the term of the lease the lessees were dispossessed, they would be entitled to recover the Rs. 3,000, advanced by them from the property leased and other property of the lessors, together with damages at the rate of 25 per cent, per annum and court costs. The plaintiffs alleged that after two years of the term of the lease had expired, they were forcibly dispossessed by the defendants-lessors. They further alleged that Rs. 4,935-6-11 ½ were due from the tenants for arrears of rent for the term of the lease. After giving deduction for certain amounts, they claimed Rs. 6,647-11-3 on this account. They further claimed, under the provisions of clause (7) of the lease, the sum of Rs. 3,000, advanced by them and Rs. 2,250 damages at the rate of 25 per cent, per annum and a further sum of Rs. 1,219-13-8 on account of revenue paid for the years 1312 Fasli to Kharif 1314 Fasli, making altogether a sum of Rs. 6,469-13-8. As to this amount, they prayed that this should be realized by sale of the property comprised in the lease. The prayers for the two amounts mentioned above were alternative prayers and the plaintiffs claimed that they might be awarded either the one sum or the other. The court below seemed to be of opinion that the suit was not cognizable by a Civil Court. But having discovered that the suit had been instituted after the expiry of the term of the lease and that the relation of landlord and tenant between the parties had come to an end, it held that the suit was cognizable by the Civil Court. But having discovered that the suit had been instituted after the expiry of the term of the lease and that the relation of landlord and tenant between the parties had come to an end, it held that the suit was cognizable by the Civil Court. But it was of opinion that the plaintiffs had no cause of action, and that they were not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. On these grounds the suit has been dismissed. In our opinion, the decree of the court below cannot be supported. None of the reliefs claimed could be claimed in any court other than the Civil Court. The arrears of rent claimed by the plaintiffs could only be claimed on the determination of the lease in accordance with the terms thereof, and a suit for such arrears could not be brought in the court of revenue against the lessors. As regards the other branch of the claim, the prayer was to get back the amount advanced and damages in accordance with the terms of the lease. If the plaintiffs were dispossessed as they alleged, and if they enjoyed the usufruct for a period of two years only out of the term of the lease, there would still be due to them a balance out of the Rs. 3,000 which they paid in advance. This balance they seek to recover by sale of the leased property. They allege that under the terms of the lease they have a charge on the leased property for any portion of the Rs. 3,000 which might be due to them and they seek to enforce that charge. A suit to enforce a charge could not, even during the currency of the lease, be brought in a revenue court. As we have already said, the term of the lease has expired and the parties do not stand now in the relation of landlord and tenant. Therefore even if the transaction be regarded as one purely of a lease and not of a usufructuary mortgage, the suit, as brought, can only be entertained by the Civil Court. The jurisdiction of a court depends upon the frame of the suit and not upon the relief which the plaintiff might ultimately be entitled to obtain from the court. Therefore even if the transaction be regarded as one purely of a lease and not of a usufructuary mortgage, the suit, as brought, can only be entertained by the Civil Court. The jurisdiction of a court depends upon the frame of the suit and not upon the relief which the plaintiff might ultimately be entitled to obtain from the court. It is true that if the plaintiffs were dispossessed during the term of their lease, they might have brought a suit in the revenue court to recover possession and compensation. 2. But they were not bound to sue to recover possession and after the expiry of the term of the lease they were competent to institute a suit in the Civil Court to recover the balance of the money which they alleged was due to them under the covenant contained in the lease. The jurisdiction of a Civil Court is only ousted if the relief, which the plaintiff seeks, could be granted to the plaintiff by a court of revenue in a suit which could be brought under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. But as we have shown above, the relief sought by the plaintiffs could not have been sought in a court of revenue and could not have been granted by that court under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. On the allegation contained in the plaint the plaintiffs had clearly a cause of action, and the court below was in error in holding that they had none. We express no opinion on the other questions raised in, the case, and we do not decide whether the plaintiffs have or have not a charge on the property comprised in the lease for the amount claimed by them. We allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the court below, and remand the case to that court under Order 41, Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure with directions to readmit it under its original number in the register and dispose of it according to law. Costs here and hitherto will be costs in the cause.