JUDGMENT : 1. The plaintiff is a person who obtained a sub-lease from the defendants, the occupancy tenants of the land. He sowed the land. The lessors trespassed on it and out and removed his crops. He prosecuted them in the criminal Court charging them with criminal trespass and assault. One of them, Laljit, was convicted of these two offences and was fined Rs. 10. The plaintiff now brings a suit foe compensation for the value of the crops which were removed. The lower Court, that is, the Judge of the Court of Small Causes, has rejected the plaint, on the ground that the suit was one for compensation for illegal ejectment by a tenant against his landlord, and has returned it for presentation to the proper Court. 2. The plaintiff applies in revision and contends that the suit is merely to recover the value of the property which was illegally taken by the defendants. It is clear that after the wrongful ejectment, the plaintiff was entitled to bring a suit to recover possession of the holding and also for compensation for wrongful dispossession under Section 79 of the Tenancy Act. If compensation for wrongful dispossession could cover and include the value of the crops removed by the defendants then it is clear that the suit ought to have been brought in the Revenue Court and not in the Court of Small Causes. It seems to me that clause (1)(b) of Section 79 would entitle the plaintiff to recover the value of any crop which has been removed by the defendants as one of the resultant damages of wrongful dispossession. The suit, therefore, ought to have been brought in the Revenue Court and the order of the Court below is quits correct. This application is, therefore, rejected. I make no order as to costs, as the opposite party is unrepresented.