1. The only question which arises in this appeal is, whetherthe Revenue Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit that was brought forrecovery of rent under Act X of 1859.

2. The lease, with which we are concerned, was a lease formining purposes and for purposes of building, making roads and so forth, theland not being demised for agricultural or horticultural purposes. Section 23,Clause 4, Act X of 1859, speaks of " suits for arrears of rent due onaccount of land either kheraji or lakheraj, or on account of any rights ofpasturage, forest rights, fisheries or the like." The word land,"as used in this section , has been construed in various decisions of this Courtsee, amongst others, the case of Raniganj Coal Association v. Judoo Nath GhoseI. L. R. (1892) Cal. 489 to refer to any land granted for agricultural orhorticultural purposes, and not to land granted for purposes such as arementioned in the lease upon which the suit is founded. In this view of thematter it is obvious that the suit could not be taken cognizance of under Act Xof 1859.

3. The learned Vakil for the appellants has, however,contended that the words "or the like" in the section would includerights such as those that were demised by the lease in question. We are,however, unable to accept that view. Those words must be taken ejusdem generiswith the rights spoken of in the said section and it could hardly be contendedthat the right of taking coal from the land demised and such other rightsdemised were covered by the words" or the like " in the section inquestion.

4. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

.

E.J. Rooke vs. BengalCoal Company, Ltd. (04.01.1901 - CALHC)