JUDGMENT Bomford J.M. 1. [September 28, 1937]-The Respondent in this case was present in person and was quite unable to argue his case. I have accordingly gone the appeal with some care and discussed with my learned colleague. The Plaintiff zamidar sued to eject the Defendant Respondent for arrears and got a decree on the 31st October, 1935. On the 12th May, 1936, she took out execution and got possession on 8th June, 1936. 2. It appears that the decree was passed for a definite figure for arrears and costs, but not for interest, which was merely stated in terms of so much per cent. The Defendant miscalculated the amount due and paid in Rs. 4 too little within the time allowed him. When he was ejected he applied to the Court for restitution u/s 151 and the Court granted his request and at the same time amended the decree by stating the exact amount due from the Defendant The zamindar went in appeal to the Commissioner, who is now my learned colleague, and the Commissioner held on the 28th August, 1936, that the Assistant Collector had no right to grant the application u/s 151 but that the proper remedy of the tenant was u/s 108(10). The tenant filed a suit accordingly on the 18th September, 1936. 3. In his plaint he alleged that there had been forcible dispossession by the zamindar who had cut his rice and his sugarcane. But according to his own evidence in the witness box he was forcibly dispossessed by nine persons, to whom the landlord had given leases, in the month of October, after he had filed his suit, his version being that he had actually recovered possession though not from the Court, after the order passed by the Assistant Collector. The defense then taken was twofold, firstly that there had been no illegality and secondly that the suit was only cognizable by the Civil Court, because the Plaintiff had been dispossessed by rival tenants as well as by the zamindar. 4. As for the first point there is no doubt at all that the decree should have shown the exact amount of interest due. 4. As for the first point there is no doubt at all that the decree should have shown the exact amount of interest due. It is urged that it was for the tenant in the three months given to him to get the decree amended if he liked, and that the landlord cannot be held responsible for the defective procedure in the office of the Assistant Collector. Illegal ejectment can however include ejectment by a process of law if the wrong process is used. The Board have held in Mangru v. Jshaq (1919) 3 U.D. 467 and Sheo Raj v. Court of Wards' (1920) 4 U.D. 393 that failure to serve notices constitutes a technical illegality which would justify a tenant suing u/s 108(10). The provisions of Section 61(2 a) are mandatory and it is for the landlord to see that the decree is properly prepared. It is obviously the intention of the law that the tenant should not be left in doubt as to the exact amount which he has to pay in order to escape ejectment. 5. On the second point the main question to consider is what was the position when the cause of action occurred. The Counsel for the Appellant concedes that if the ejectment was carried out by the zamindar alone, the mere fact that he introduced tenants at a later date will not deprive the Revenue Courts of jurisdiction. The Commissioner has expressed the opinion that the order of the Commissioner dated the 28th August, 1936, restored matters to the state they were in when the tenant made his application on the 11th June, 1936. This means that the tenant had a cause of action on that date for illegal ejectment and this is correct. At that time when the cause of action arose the ejectment had been carried out by the landlord alone, and this being the case it matters little whether he brought in fresh tenants, on the 16th June, as alleged by himself or at a later date, as has been held by the Courts below. The case has been unnecessarily complicated because the tenant instead of confining himself to the cause of action which accrued on the 8th June, 1936, introduced in his complaint the later dispossession when his standing crops were forcibly cut. The case has been unnecessarily complicated because the tenant instead of confining himself to the cause of action which accrued on the 8th June, 1936, introduced in his complaint the later dispossession when his standing crops were forcibly cut. Actually what happened between the 11th June the date of his application and the 18th September when he filed his suit can be put on one side. He may or may have not got some kind of possession of his fields either by the tacit consent of the landlord or as a trespasser pure and simple, but the fact remains that the dispossession of which he had a right to complain was the dispossession of the 8th June. 6. His suit was therefore correctly brought in the Revenue Court and the case can be distinguished from the case reported in Rampur v. Dubaris (1931) 12 U.D. 348. I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs. Darling S.M. [October 2, 1937] 7. The cause of action arose on the 8th June, 1936, when the illegal ejectment took place only the zamindar was then concerned", the subsequent introduction of a new set of tenants by the zamindar is immaterial. The ejected tenant has the right to recover possession by way of a suit in the Revenue Courts under Clause (10) of Section on l08 against the zamindar without imp leading the subsequent lessees who had not entered the picture when the cause of action arose on the 8th June, 1936. As soon as the legal position had been clarified by the Commissioner's judgment dated the 28th August, the tenant lost no time in-lodging the present suit for recovery of possession of his holding on the 18th September. The Assistant Collector was right to decree the suit, the Commissioner was equally correct in upholding this decision. I therefore agree in the proposed order dismissing the appeal.