JUDGMENT Chamier, J.
1. In this case, the Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff had no right to sue as a thekadar. That decision was reversed by Mr. Justice Karamat Husain, who remanded the case to the lower Appellate Court for the determination of the remaining issues. The Subordinate Judge has now dismissed the suit on another ground, namely, that the suit is not maintainable in the Civil Court. The plaintiff again appeals to this Court. The Sub-ordinate Judge finds support for his view of the case in the decision of Knox and Karamat Husain, JJ., in Narain Singh v. Gobind Ram 8 A.L.J. 431 : 33 A. 523 : 9 Ind. Cas. 1022. In that case the plaintiff went first to the Revenue Court saying that he was an occupancy-tenant and the defendant was his sub-tenant. The Revenue Court dismissed his application for the ejectment of the defendant. The plaintiff then came into the Civil Court alleging that the defendant had been his sub-tenant, but had become a trespasser, because he had pleaded in the Revenue Court that he was not the sub-tenant of the plaintiff, but was himself an occupancy tenant of the land and the Revenue Court had so held. This Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the civil suit. I am not quite sure that that decision is in accordance with other decisions of this Court but it does not appear to me to cover the present case. Here the plaintiff sued in a Revenue Court to eject the defendant saying' that he was a tenant from year to year. The defendant replied that he had bought the property from one Harbansa and that Harbansa's house formerly stood on the plot. The Assistant Collector, after referring to the wajib-ul-arz said that he thought that the case was not a clear one and that the question should be tried out by a competent Court with reference to the customs of the village, but then he went on to say: "Prima facie I hold that the defendant has the first claim to hold the land on payment of rent" and then he says that the plaintiff should first have the status of the defendant determined. He dismissed the suit. It seems to me that although he was inclined to hold that the defendant was entitled to become the tenant of the plaintiff, he was not sure that the defendant had become the tenant of the plaintiff and he dismissed the suit, because in his opinion the Revenue Court could not decide the real question in the case which could be solved only by inquiry into the customs of the village. There does not seem to me to be a definite finding that the defendant is a tenant of the plaintiff. The present case appears to me to be covered rather by the decisions in Zuheda Bibi v. Sheo Charan 22 A. 83 and Humid Ali Shah v. Wilayat Ali 22 A. 93, than by the decision in Narain Singh v. Gobind Ram 8 A.L.J. 431 : 33 A. 523 : 9 Ind. Cas. 1022 and I hold, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the present suit. On the last occasion when this case was remanded, the Subordinate Judge was directed to determine the remaining issues. Had he done so, I might have disposed of the case now. He has determined only the question of jurisdiction. I set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and remand the case to that Court with directions to readmit the appeal to its original number and dispose of it according to law. Costs here and in the lower Appellate Court will be the costs in the cause.