JUDGMENT Jenkins, C.J. - These seven Appeals arise out of a litigation under sec. 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and the first objection that is taken in the appeals is that the lower Appellate Court erred in so far as it did not grant a decree for possession. Now, sec. 106 provides for the institution of suits before revenue officers and indicates the points that can be decided by the revenue officer. But these provisions do not vest the revenue officer with power to pass a decree for possession. It is true that these suits were not heard by the revenue officer, but that is only because they were transferred to a competent Civil Court for trial under the first proviso to the section. The mere fact that they were transferred to a Court which in its ordinary jurisdiction might have passed a decree for possession, could not widen the permissible scope of these particular suits. Therefore, we must hold that the lower Appellate Court was right in its view that the Revenue Court could not grant a decree for possession. This disposes of Appeals Nos. 3250, 3252 and 3253. The next group of Appeals with which 1 will deal are those numbered 3247 to 3249. The answer to the Appellant in relation to them is that the lower Appellate Court having materials before it came to the conclusion that there had been a recognition of the tenancy, and in view of that finding it appears to me to be impossible for us to interfere with the decision of the lower Appellate Court in those three Appeals. The same answer is afforded to the Appellant in his Appeal No. 3251, for here, too, it is shown to us that before the lower Appellate Court, though possibly not before the Court of first instance, there were materials on which it was justifiable for the Court as a Court of fact to infer that there was the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and, if there were those materials and the Court came to the finding that the Respondent in that appeal was a raiyat, then there was all that was necessary for the application of the presumption formulated in sec. 50 of the Act. The result then is that all these Appeals fail and must be dismissed with costs. 50 of the Act. The result then is that all these Appeals fail and must be dismissed with costs. We assess the hearing-fee at two gold mohurs for the first group of the three Appeals together (sic) one gold mohur for each of the ren(sic) We say no(sic) "rectness of the form (sic) has been passed, for that is a matter not before us on appeal, and if the order is open to criticism it is on a matter of form rather than of substance.