1. We are clearly of opinion that a lease of a coffee garden is not an agricultural lease within the meaning of Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is argued that Section 108 does not apply because the money sought to be recovered is not rent and the property was not destroyed. Looking at the plaint and the karar B, we thiak the relation of lessor and lessee was asserted and in fact existed. It is rent which the plaintiff seeks to recover. It is not disputed that the whole of the plants situated in the part included in the karar was absolutely destroyed and the 2nd defendant in consequence abandoned the garden. If as a matter of fact, the land only had been the subject of the demise it might be doubtful whether Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act applied. But that is not the case. As far as we can gather from karar B, the lease was of the coffee plants only. Wo think therefore the Subordirato Judge is right and accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.