JUDGMENT Takru, J. - This is a Defendant's application in revision u/s 115 of the CPC and is directed against an order of the learned Civil Judge of Banaras by which he set aside in appeal the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif Haveli, and remanded the case for a fresh trial. The learned Munsif was further directed to remit the issue of grove-holder's right involved in the suit to the revenue court. 2. The facts leading up to the order under revision are as follows: 3. The Plaintiff brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 270/ - as compensation for the loss caused to him by the Defendants' wrongfully cutting and removing a tree standing on plot No. 112/19, belonging to him, situate in village Birdholpur, in the district of Banaras. His case was that the said plot was his grove land, and the Defendants, besides committing the act complained of above were threatening to repeat their acts in future. He, therefore, prayed for damages and for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff's rights over the said plot. The Defendants pleaded in the written statement that the said plot was not grove land but was banjar, and that the tree in question belonged to them. They also pleaded that suit was barred in view of Section 242, read with Section 206 of the UP Tenancy Act. The trial court rejected the plea of jurisdiction but dismissed the suit inter alia on the ground that the Plaintiff was neither the grove holder of the plot in suit, nor was he the owner of the tree in question. On appeal the learned Civil Judge held that the question whether the plot in suit was a tenancy grove of the Plaintiff or not should have been decided by the revenue court. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and remanded the case with the necessary directions as stated above. 4. When this revision application came up for hearing before our brother Tendon, J., he considered it necessary, in view of the conflicting authorities, to refer it to a Division Bench and it is thus that this revision application has come up before us for disposal. 5. 4. When this revision application came up for hearing before our brother Tendon, J., he considered it necessary, in view of the conflicting authorities, to refer it to a Division Bench and it is thus that this revision application has come up before us for disposal. 5. Sri Surendra Narain Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, has urged that before a plea of tenancy raised in a suit relating to agricultural land can be referred to the appropriate revenue court u/s 288 of the UP Tenancy Act, two conditions must be fulfilled; (1) that the suit must relate to agricultural land and (2) that the question regarding tenancy right should arise therein, and that if either of the two pre-requisites are absent, the court concerned has no jurisdiction to refer any such issue to the revenue court. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties on this point we are of the opinion that the contention of Sri Surendra Narain Singh is sound and must be accepted. Sub-section (23) of Section 3 of the UP Tenancy Act defines a "tenant" as follows: A 'tenant' means the person by whom rent is, or but for a contract express or implied would be, payable and, except when the contrary intention appears, includes a sub-tenant, but does not include ... a grove-holder... 7. This definition would show that unless there is some other provision in the UP Tenancy Act which has the effect of conferring upon a grove holder the same status as a tenant, he would not be regarded as a tenant, and his rights could not be the same as the rights of a tenant. The rights and liabilities of a grove-holder are set out in Section 206 of the Tenancy Act and sub/Ss. (e) and (f) thereof make certain provisions of the UP Tenancy Act applicable to him as if he were a tenant. In neither of these two sections is there any reference to Section 288. All that those Sub-sections say is that for matters covered by the specific section mentioned therein a grove holder is to be regarded as a tenant. In other words, he is to be regarded as a tenant for the limited purposes stated therein and no other. In neither of these two sections is there any reference to Section 288. All that those Sub-sections say is that for matters covered by the specific section mentioned therein a grove holder is to be regarded as a tenant. In other words, he is to be regarded as a tenant for the limited purposes stated therein and no other. It is obvious therefore that when one of the issues in a suit is whether a party is a grove holder or not, the civil court cannot refer that issue to the revenue court, but must decide the same itself. We are fortified in our view by the decisions of this Court in the cases of Achal Singh v. Subhag 1951 A.W.R. (H.C.) 204 and the unreported case of Sri Sahdeo Rai v. Shri Ram Lakhan Rai and Ors. Second Appeal No. 85 of 1952, decided by Hon. Upadhya, J. on 20-2-1956). In both these cases emphasis was laid on the fact that a grove holder is not a tenant and that all that Clause (f) of Section 206 of the UP Tenancy Act provides is that certain provisions of that Act which are applicable to a tenant are also made applicable to a grove holder, and that from this fact alone it cannot be said that a grove holder is to be treated as a tenant for all purposes. It was therefore held in these cases that where one of the issues in a suit is whether the Defendant is a grove holder of the land in suit the civil court cannot refer the case to the revenue court but must decide the issue itself. Sri Gopi Krishan Sahai, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party, drew our attention to the case of Badri Prasad Vs. Sheo Balak, AIR 1951 All 358 in which a learned Single Judge of this Court took a contrary view. The decision of that case rests upon the basis that Sub-section (f) of Section 206, UP Tenancy Act has made Sections 59 to 64 of that Act, which relate to suits for declaration of tenancy, applicable to grove holders also, and that suits of the nature covered by those sections, were, by virtue of Section 242 of the Tenancy Act, cognizable exclusively by the revenue Court. As such, when the expression "tenant right" is used in Section 288, it must be held that reference is made to such right as lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue court for declaration. It was therefore held that when such a question of a grove holder's right is raised in a suit pending in a civil court, that issue must be framed and referred to the revenue court for determination. With all respects to the learned Judge, we do not find ourselves in agreement with the view propounded by him for the reasons already expressed by us. As the decision on this point is sufficient to dispose of the present revision application, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the first point raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant, namely whether grove land can be said to be agricultural land or not. 8. We, therefore, allow this revision petition and set aside the order of the court below. The applicant is entitled to his costs. Let the record of this case be sent down to the court below as expeditiously as possible.