JUDGMENT The point for determination in both the civil revision petitions is the same and I therefore deal with them together. Government sold in auction the right to pasture cattle on certain lanka lands and the respondents became the successful auction purchasers. The terms of the engagement prohibited the lessee from cultivating the land. Apparently the prohibition was imposed as a measure of river conservancy. The terms of the engagement also authorised the Collector of East Godavari to impose a penalty for violation of the condition. After having got possession of the lanka lands for purposes of pasture the respondents cultivated tobacco therein and the Collector imposed a penalty on them. They failed to pay the amount and so two suits were filed against them to recover these amounts on the small cause side of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Amalapuram. The respondents then took the objection that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction by reason of Article 7 of Schedule II to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. This objection was upheld and the plaints returned for presentation to the proper Court. Government have now come up in revision. It appears to me that in making the order he did the learned Judge in the Court below overlooked the substance of the plaintiff's claim. That claim was this: “The defendant took on lease certain lands subject to certain conditions. He has violated one of those conditions. I claim damages for the same. I have the right to determine the question of damages and I have fixed that at a certain figure.” In other words the suit is for damages for breach of contract pure and simple. Now in fixing the quantum of damages the Collector had regard to the income or profits which the defendants might be expected to have received from the property. But the learned Judge in the Court below was wrong in supposing that this circumstance made the claim a claim for rent or that the suit was for enhancement or ascertainment of rent. That was not asked for at all. The subject of rent was mentioned in the plaint only to show that the amount claimed as damages was reasonable. An attempt was made to argue that the case fell under Article 31 of the II Schedule to the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act and the decision in Savarimuthu v. Aithurisu Rowther (1901) 11 MLJ. The subject of rent was mentioned in the plaint only to show that the amount claimed as damages was reasonable. An attempt was made to argue that the case fell under Article 31 of the II Schedule to the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act and the decision in Savarimuthu v. Aithurisu Rowther (1901) 11 MLJ. 428 : 25 Mad. 103 (F.B.)., was read in support of that argument. This decision does not apply because all that was decided there was that, where the defendant was in possession under a decree which was subsequently reversed on appeal the plaintiff could not sue him in a small cause Court for the profits the defendant had received from the land. That decision had nothing to do with a claim for damages. An argument was based on the use in the plaint of the words “unauthorised use and cultivation of the lands and enjoyment of the crops raised by him therein” to the effect that this showed that the claim was for the profits from the land. I do not think so. In substance the suits were for damages and they were cognizable by the Small Cause Court. The revision petitions are allowed with costs. The Court below will receive the plaints and proceed to dispose of them according to law. K.C.- Petition allowed.