JUDGMENT Bajpai, J. - This is an appeal by the plain tiffs who object to the procedure adopted by the trial Court in sending the record to the Revenue Court for a finding u/s 273 of the Agra Tenancy Act, Local Act III of 1926. The facts are that the Plaintiff brought a suit for a declaration that a certain plot was owned by them and that the Defendants had no concern with it who might be ordered to remove certain trees and constructions on the same. The Defendants alleged that their house stood on a portion of the land in question for a very long time and in another portion nim, jack-fruit, beta, babul trees, bamboo clumps and rubbish heaps stood and in a portion of the land vegetables etc., were grown. They stated that the Plaintiffs' plea that on the land in question the house of one Ganesh Ahir stood and the said Ganesh Ahir had planted certain jack-fruit trees and bamboo clumps with the permission of the zamindar but the Defendants recently without the consent of the zamindar took possession of the land and made certain other constructions wis incorrect ; on the contrary the Defendants had been in possession of the said land for a number of years on payment of rent. No plea was taken that the suit related to an agricultural tenancy and the Defendants were the tenants thereof; it was not said that the record should be sent to the Revenue Court for the decision of the issue as to whether the Defendants held land as the tenant of the Plaintiff. One of the Defendants was examined under Order 10, Rule 10, CPC Code, and therein also he said that the land was taken for the purpose of tethering cattle, building houses, planting trees and growing vegetables. He said that he had planted an orchard, that on a portion of the land cow-dung cakes were prepared and on a certain portion vegetables and chillies were grown. He ended by saying that the land had not been taken for agricultural purposes and no grain had been sown on the same. He said that he had planted an orchard, that on a portion of the land cow-dung cakes were prepared and on a certain portion vegetables and chillies were grown. He ended by saying that the land had not been taken for agricultural purposes and no grain had been sown on the same. The Court of first instance was in some doubt as to whether S. 273 of the Tenancy Act applied or not and it, therefore, on the 2nd of May, 1931, passed an order to the effect that the pleader for the Defendants should show by Monday whether he pleaded tenancy or not land whether any issue regarding it be sent to the Revenue Court or not because the written statement is not quite clear on this point. 2. The Defendants on the 4th of May, 1931, stated that a portion of the disputed plot was sown by vegetables and on a portion there was a bela (a place for tethering cattle) of the Defendants and on a portion there were trees and bamboo clumps. It was said that the Defendants were the tenants of the Plaintiff and S. 273 was applicable. It seems that in the Court below proper attention was not paid to the fact that before Section 273 could be applicable the suit must relate to an agricultural holding, and it was thought that in order to make that provision applicable all that is necessary was that the Defendants should plead that they were tenants of the Plaintiffs, In this the trial Court was wrong. The position that was taken by the Defendants was that they were tenants, but they admitted that the land was not taken for agricultural purposes. Under these circumstances even if I were not to look at the report of the Commissioner appointed by the Revenue Court, which goes to show that no vegetable cultivation was going on the plot, it is not possible to hold that the dispute related to an agricultural holding. That being so, the entire procedure adopted by the trial Court was irregular. I have not gone into the other evidence in the case but I do not agree with the lower appellate Court that the plot of land is an agricultural land in view of the admissions made by the Defendants. 3. It is, however, contended by Mr. That being so, the entire procedure adopted by the trial Court was irregular. I have not gone into the other evidence in the case but I do not agree with the lower appellate Court that the plot of land is an agricultural land in view of the admissions made by the Defendants. 3. It is, however, contended by Mr. Upadhia on behalf of the Respondents that the Courts below on the evidence have found that the Defendants are the tenants of the Plaintiff qua this plot on payment of rent which has been paid by them regularly for a number of years and the Plaintiffs' suit for ejectment and for declaration would not, therefore, succeed. That may be so, but I must set right the procedure adopted by the trial Court. The record should not have been sent to the Revenue Court, but on the pleadings of the parties the Civil Court should have proceeded to determine the controversy between them. It may be that the Civil Court might still come to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief because of the fact that they had let out the land to the Defendants for the purposes mentioned by them, and the Defendants have in no way acted in contravention of the purposes for which the land was let out to them. 4. For the reasons given above, I allow this appeal, set aside the decrees of the Courts below and remand the case through the lower appellate Court to the Court of first instance for disposal on the merits. As I have decided only a preliminary point, the remand should be deemed to be under Order 11, Rule 23, CPC Code, and the Appellants will be entitled to a return of court-fees. Costs here and heretofore will abide the event. Leave to file an appeal by way of Letters Patent is granted.