JUDGMENT Bind Basni Prasad, J. - This is a petition in revision against an order of the learned Civil Judge of Ghazipur holding that it was not necessary for him to refer issue of tenancy under the provisions of S. 288 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (Act XVII of 1939). The material facts are as follows: The Plaintiffs alleged that they and the Defendants formed a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara and that the zamindari property, tenancy holdings, houses decrees, securtites and cash, and moveables set out separately in schedules A to B of the plaint belonged to this joint Hindu family. They prayed that in respect of the zamindari property and the tenancy holdings only a declaration of the Plaintiffs one-third share be granted but actual division of the Plaintiffs share be made in the rest of the property. There were no less than 26 Defendants and they filed separate written statements. A large number of pleas were raised by them and no less than 10 issues framed by the learned Civil Judge. For the purposes of this revision, however, we are concerned only with one plea which was taken in defence. Some of the Defendants denied that the tenancies given in the plaint were the joint family property. They claimed that either they were their self-acquisitions or were allotted to them at a partition which took place in the family many years ago. The learned Civil Judge did not frame any specific issue to determine whether the tenancy holdings were the joint family property or the separate property of any or all of the Defendants. 2. Issue No. 5 framed by him, however ran as follows: Is the suit in respect of the tenancy not maintainable in this Court ? Is claim relating to the property in list G beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court ? 3. He proceeded to determine this issue first. The plea of want of territorial jurisdiction in respect of the property described in list G was abandoned by the Defendants and as regards the point of jurisdiction he held that the suit was cognizable by him. In the course of the hearing of this issue it was pressed on behalf of the Defendants that a reference should be made to the Revenue Court u/s 288 of the U.P. Tenancy Act for the determination of the question of tenancy. In the course of the hearing of this issue it was pressed on behalf of the Defendants that a reference should be made to the Revenue Court u/s 288 of the U.P. Tenancy Act for the determination of the question of tenancy. He held, howeyer that it was not necessary for him to make any such reference. Seventeen of the Defendants come in revision to assail this order of the learned Civil Judge. 4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties we have arrived at the conclusion that the learned Civil Judge erred in not referring the issue of tenancy to the Revenue Court. The provisions of S. 288 U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, are much wider than those of S. 273 of the Agra Tenancy Act, 1926. A glance at the provisions of the two sections will show this. Now S. 288 provides as follows: 288 (1). If in any suit relating to agricultural land instituted in a Civil Court, any question regarding tenant right arises and such question has not previously been determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the Civil Court shall frame an issue on the plea of tenancy and submit the record to the appropriate Revenne Court for the decision of that issue only. 5. It is obvious that the provisions of this section are imperative and no discretion is left in the Civil Court when in any suit before it a "question regarding tenant right arises". The whole point in the present case is whether such a question has been raised. The Plaintiffs alleged that the tenancies in dispute belonged to them and the Defendants both whereas the Defendants claimed exclusive rights to those tenancies on the basis of self-acquisition or partition. 6. We are of opinion that a "question regarding tenant right" has been raised in this case. In Sheo Prasad Tewari v. Shambhu Narain Singh 1943 A L W 300 Mulla J. observed that for the application of S 288 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, all that is necessary is that the Defendant should raise a question regarding tenant right. As soon as any question regarding such right is raised the Civil Court is bound u/s 288 to frame an issue on that question and to submit it for decision to the appropriate Revenue Court. In Ram Karan v. Jagnandan Dube 1944 S L R 19. As soon as any question regarding such right is raised the Civil Court is bound u/s 288 to frame an issue on that question and to submit it for decision to the appropriate Revenue Court. In Ram Karan v. Jagnandan Dube 1944 S L R 19. Collister J. observed that the question whether a joint Hindu family or an individual member of it is the tenant of certain fixed rate tenancy plots is a question regarding tenant right within the meaning o S. 288. 7. The learned Civil Judge has sought to distinguish these two cases on the ground that they related to agricultural land only whereas in the present case we are concerned with other property also. There is nothing in S. 288 to make it inapplicable where part of the property in dispute is agricultural land in respect of which a plea as regards tenancy is raised and part is not. It is impossible to distinguish the present case from the two rulings cited above. The learned Civil Judge has also remarked that the Revenue Court will have to decide whether the family was joint or not when the tenancy was acquired and the Civil Court will also have to make such an enquiry in regard to other items of property and there is a possibility of a conflict between the findings of the two Courts. It may be that there may arise such a conflict, but it is also passible that such a conflict may not arise, If, however, such a conflict does arise, then the two conflicting findings will be reconciled in appeal. Where the law is explicit the Court can not refuse to enforce it because of any inconvenience. We are of opinion that the lower Court should have referred the issue of tenancy to the Revenue Court. 8. For the reasons given above, we allow the revision and set aside the order of the lower Court refusing to refer the issue as to tenancy to the Revenue Court. We direct that the learned Civil Judge shall frame an appropriate issue from the pleadings of the parties as to the tenancies in dispute, shall refer it u/s 288 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, to the Revenue Court and then proceed with the case according to the law. 9. The Petitioners will have their costs of this Court from the opposite parties.