( 1 ) THE appellant is the plaintiff and respondents are defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit land R. S. No. 206/3 measuring 1 acre 28 guntas situated in Savagaon village, Belgaum Taluk. According to the plaintiff, the suit land is a grassy land in which grass is grown naturally without human effort and is not governed by the provisions of the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, or the Mysore Land Reforms act, 1961, It is further alleged by the plaintiff that the suit land was orginally leased to the first defendant on a rental of Rs. 40 per year and that thereafter, the 1st and second defendants who are brothers divided the land between themselves and are in possession of the same and that they have not paid the rents for the three years from 1s54-65 to 1966-67. He further alleges that he terminated the tenancy of the defendants under the Transfer of Property Act and has filed the suit for possession of the suit land as well as for reccovery of Rs. 120 from them being the arrears ot rent as well as for future mesne profits from the date of suit. The second defendant appeared and admitted the suit claim. The first defendant pleaded that he is cultivating the suit land, that grass was not grown naturally and without human effort and that he cultivates the suit land raises ragi and Natchana crops every year. He further contended that he has paid the rent for the suit years and that the rent agreed upon was Rs. 30 per year and not Rs. 40. The trial Court held that the provisions of the BT. and AL. Act and the Mysore Land Reforms act 1961 are not applicable to the suit land, that the rent agreed upon was rs. 30 per year, that the defendants divided the suit land between themselves and are in possession of the same, that the first defendant has not paid the rent for the years' 1964-65 to 1966-67, that the suit is not barred by limitation, that the tenancy has been terminated by a valid notice and accordingly it decreed the suit for possession as well as for rent to be paid by defendants 1 and 2 at the rate of Rs. 60 each towards the arrears for the three suit years as well as for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 20 per year from each of them from 1967-68. The first defendant appealed. The lower appellate Court held that under S. 2 (A) (1) of the Mysore Land Reforms act, growing of grass also comes within the definition of 'agriculture' and since the plaintiff admitted that grass is grown on the suit land, it held that the land leased to the defendant comes within the ambit of the Mysore land Reforms Act, 1961. It therefore reversed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit as being not maintainable. ( 2 ) IT is urged on behalf of the appellant by Sri Shirgurkar, that the term 'agriculture' as defined in S. 2 (A) (1) of the Mysore Land Reforms act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, indicates that the grass on the suit land must be raised by the effort of the defendant and that if the grass is found to be growing naturally on the suit land, the present suit would be maintainable and would not be barred by the provisions of the Act. Under s. 41 (2) of the Act, no landlord shall obtain possession of any land held by a tenant except by following the procedure under the Act. 'under S. 42 of the Act, no suit shall lie in any Court for recovery of any rent payable by the tenant except as provided in that section. Admittedly the first defendant is the tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit land. According to the plaintiff both the defendants are his tenants. Hence, if the provisions of the Act apply, the suit would be not maintainable. ( 3 ) UNDER S. 2 (A) (34) 'tenant' is defined to mean 'an agriculturist who holds land on lease from a landlord'. Under S. 2 (A) (3) an 'agriculturist' is defined to mean a person who cultivates land personally. Under sub-clause (10) of the same section, the expression 'to cultivate' is defined to mean to till or husband the land for the purpose of raising or improving agricultural produce whether by manual labour or by means of cattle or machinery or to carry on any agricultural operation thereon. Under sub-clause (10) of the same section, the expression 'to cultivate' is defined to mean to till or husband the land for the purpose of raising or improving agricultural produce whether by manual labour or by means of cattle or machinery or to carry on any agricultural operation thereon. The explanation to that sub-clause states that "a person who takes up a contract to cut grass, or to gather the fruits or other produce of any land, shall not on that account only be deemed to cultivate such land". In the course of the evidence of the first defendant, it was elicited in the cross-examination, that he was putting no effort in order to make the grass grow. Hence, the grass on the suit land must be held to be the result of a natural growth without the defendants doing anything to make it grow. Hence, the defendants would come within the definition 'tenant' under the Act if it can be said that they are persons who "carry on any agricultural operation on the land". The definition of the expression 'to cultivate' under the Act is similar to the definition of the same expression under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 which is in pari materia with the mysore Act. The word 'agriculture' has been defined under that Act to include the raising of crops, grass or garden produce. The expression "to carry on any agricultural operation" fell for interpretation in Nathubhai gandabahi v. State of Bombay, 57 Bom. L. R. 199. In that case, the lands were grass lands in which grass grew spontaneously. It was contended by the petitioners that they must be deemed to be cultivating lands within the meaning of the expression 'to cultivate' as defined in S. 2 of that Act. It was observed as follows:"raising would mean promoting or causing the growth of, and therefore, unless the petitioners in some way promote or cause the growth of grass, they would not be raising grass. In order to promote or cause the growth of grass some operation must be done to the land itself. Either it may be sowing seeds or it may be watering or it may be weeding or whatever other operation there may be. In order to promote or cause the growth of grass some operation must be done to the land itself. Either it may be sowing seeds or it may be watering or it may be weeding or whatever other operation there may be. "it was conteded on behalf of the petitioners that they have fenced the land and kept a watchman to see that grass when it is cut and stacked on the land is not damaged by animals and that in doing so, they are promoting or causing the growth of the grass. It was held that those acts only relate to the prevention, destruction or deterioration of the grass and not to the raising of it, and since those acts relate to an operation that takes place only after the grass is grown and since the emphasis that the Act places is not upon what is grown on the land but upon what operation is carried on the land, it was held that even though grass may grow on the land unless an agricultural operation is carried out by the owner in relation to the growing of that grass, the definition of 'to cultivate' would not be satisfied. In view of the admission of the first defendant in his evidence, it must be held that the defendants are not carrying on any agricultural operation by allowing the grass to grow on the suit land and that therefore, by the mere fact that grass grows on the suit land, the defendants cannot claim to be tenants as defined under the Act The lower appellate Court was therefore in error in coming to the conclusion that by the mere fact that grass is grown on the suit lands the suit would be rendered incompetent under provisions of the Act. ( 4 ) IT is contended on behalf of the first respondent, by Sri Joshi, that the contention of the first defendant that he is cultivating the suit land and has raised ragi and nachana crops on the suit land has not been considered by the lower appellate Court and that if the evidence adduced in support of that contention is accepted, then the defendants would come under the definition of the term 'tenant' as defined in the Act and would be entitled to protection under the Act and the suit would for that reason also be incompetent. The trial Court considered the evidence adduced by the first defendant in support of this contention. But it held that he has not succeeded in establishing that ragi and nachana had been raised by the defendants on the suit land. But the lower appellate court merely' observed that there is oral evidence on the side of the defendants to the effect that he is raising crops and that merely because the crops are not entered in the record of rights, it does not take awav the case from the ambit of either the Mysore Land Reforms Act or the BT. and al. Act, 1948. The lower appellate Court has not considered the evidence in the case relating to the contention of the first defendant that he has raised ragi and nachana crops on the suit land, but it appears to have based its decision mainly on its interpretation of the definition of the word 'agriculture' in the Act. That interpretation is wrong, as already pointed out above. If the evidence establishes that the first defendant has raised ragi and nachana crop on the suit land, then the provisions of the Act would be applicable and the suit would be incompetent. If that fact is not established, then the suit would be maintainable. ( 5 ) SINCE the evidence on the relevant question involved in the suit has not been considered by the lower appellate Court, the appeal is allowed, the decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the lower appellate Court for fresh disposal according to law, keeping in view the observations made above. The Court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal shall be refunded to the appellant. Parties will bear their own costs in this appeal. --- *** --- .