JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - This is a Plaintiff's second appeal against the reversing judgment of the lower appellate court arising out of a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession on the ejectment of the Defendants on the allegation made in the plaint that the Defendants were inducted on the land in dispute on the basis of an annual veral lease in the year 1952, which was to expire on the 31st December 1952; and they not having vacated the suit land in accordance with the terms of the oral lease, the present suit has been brought. 2. The land in suit is situate in the ex-state of Sonepur and the acreage involved is 695. The Defendants on the other hand contended that the ancestors of the Defendants acquired the land in dispute and they are non-evictable tenants. The Defendants had further taken up the plea that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and that the suit was barred by limitation. 3. The land in suit appertains to Bhogra Holding No. 1/1 of the settlement. The Plaintiff happens to be a lambardar-gountia. The trial Court disbelieving the Plaintiff's story of oral lease Came to the conclusion that the land appertains to Bhogra Holding No. 1/1 where the Plaintiff is the lambardar-gountia, and as such he is entitled to the property and the Defendants being tenants in the Bhogra Holding have no permanent rights and as such are evictable. The trial court therefore decreed the Plaintiff's suit. The lower appellate court also confirmed the finding of the trial court that the Plaintiff has not been able to prove oral lease as avered in the plaint. The lower appellate court also finds that the Civil Court has jurisdiction as the parties are not landlord and tenants under the Orissa Tenants Protection Act. Bot nevertheless the lower appellate court dismissed the Plaintiff's suit on the ground that the Plaintiff had failed to prove his possession within 12 years from the date of the suit. 4. As it appears from the settlement record of rights, the land in dispute appertains to Bhogra Holding No. 1/1 and this position is accepted by both parties. There the Defendants have been recorded as Sikmi tenants and they are liable to pay two Purugs of paddy to the Plaintiff. 4. As it appears from the settlement record of rights, the land in dispute appertains to Bhogra Holding No. 1/1 and this position is accepted by both parties. There the Defendants have been recorded as Sikmi tenants and they are liable to pay two Purugs of paddy to the Plaintiff. The lower appellate court therefore went wrong in law in dismissing the Plaintiff's suit on the ground it is barred by limitation on account of the position that the Plaintiff had failed to prove his possession within 12 years of the suit. The Plaintiff can very well take advantage of the possession of the Defendants-tenants possession as his own possession. If the Defendant's possession is to be calculated as adverse possession the tenancy must have ceased before 12 years to be calculated from the date of the suit. Bot this is not the position in the present case. While vacating the finding of the lower appellate court that the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation I am of the opinion that suit must be dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. Prima facie it appears that the relationship between the parties is one between landlord and tenant. Mr. Ranjit Mohanty, appearing on behalf of the Respondents-tenants, has drawn my attention to Clause (a) of Section 7 of the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950 (Orissa Act No. IV of 1950) which runs as follows: 7. Notwithstanding anything contained in the tenancy laws of the mereged States as continued in force by virtue of Article 4 of the States Merger (Governor's Provinces) Order, 1999 (a) all suits and proceedings between landlord and tenant as such shall be instituted and tried in revenue courts. Explanation-In this clause the expression 'landlord' shall mean a person immediately under whom a tenant holds land, and the expression 'tenant' shall mean a person who holds land under another person and If or, but for a special contract, would be liable to pay rent for that land to that person; The provisions are very clear and I feel convinced that this was a proceeding between landlord and tenants as defined in the Explanation itself. So by virtue of the provisions of Clause (a) of Section 7 all suits shall be instituted and tried in revenue courts. So by virtue of the provisions of Clause (a) of Section 7 all suits shall be instituted and tried in revenue courts. The point seems to be irresistible and the position is confirmed with reference to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagannath Behera and Others Vs. Raja Harihar Singh Mardaraj Bhramarbara Roy, . 5. The suit, therefore, must stand dismissed and the Plaintiff, if so advised, may seek his remedy otherwise available in accordance with law. Parties are to bear their own costs throughout. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed