JUDGMENT Misra and Madeley, JJ. - This appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit out of which it arises was one for the recovery of rent of ex-proprietary tenancy of the Defendants-respondents for the years 1344 to 1347 Fasli. The right to recover rent for the years in suit was not disputed by the Defendants and the sole contention raised by them was that there were slump remissions in this village for the years in suit and that the decree should be passed after allowing these slump remissions. The learned Assistant Collector was of the view that as the patwari's papers did not show these slump remissions, the Plaintiffs were entitled to the entire amount without any deduction. He accordingly passed a decree for a sum of Rs. 201-2 with interest and costs and future interest. The learned lower appellate Court, however upon a consideration of certain decisions of this Court, held that remissions, if there were any, should have been allowed in the circumstances of the case and he remanded the suit to the lower Court for taking such evidence as the parties may adduce about the rate of remissions which were prevalent in the village during the years in suit, and then allowing those ramissions to the Appellants. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised that no appeal lies against the order of the Court below under the U.P. Tenancy Act and that an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) is equally incompetent. We think that the preliminary objection is sound and must prevail. So far as the application of order 43 Rule 1(u), Code of Civil Procedure, is concerned we are of opinion that the provisions relating to appeals are exhaustively embodied in the U.P. Tenancy Act and appeals from orders under that enactment are governed by the provisions contained therein, Vide Section 263. Section 269 of the U.P. Tenancy Act lays down that "An appeal shall lie to the High Court or the Chief Court, as the case may be, from the appellate decree of a district Judge on any of the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908." 3. By this section appeals to the Chief Court are provided from appellate decrees alone and not from appellate orders. By this section appeals to the Chief Court are provided from appellate decrees alone and not from appellate orders. Section 271 of the U.P. Tenancy Act provides for appeals from orders and such appeals are limited to orders as are contained in Sections 47, 104, 144 and Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the orders which are made appealable under these sections are only those passed by an Assistant Collector of the first class or by a Collectar. This enactment thus draws a distinction between decrees and orders which are mentioned in Section 104, 144 or Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We also think that the present order is not covered by the word "decree" mentioned in Section 269. 4. As there is no other provision under which an appeal could lie against the order of the learned lower appellate Court, this appeal is incompetent. We accordingly dismiss it with costs.