JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Manbhoom, dated the 25th of May 1898. The suit was one for ejectment of an agricultural tenant. The Defendant was inducted into certain land by a lease dated the 28th April 1896. The area of the holding was 1G bighas 19 cottas, and the conditions of the lease were that he was to pay a rent of 8 annas per annum for 3 years from 1283 to 1285 ; that in the beginning of 1286 he was to take an Ameen from the landlord's serishta and get the measurement and jamabandi of the naiabadi land made, and in case he did not pray for an Ameen in the beginning of 1286, he was to forfeit his naiabadi right and the land was to go back to the landlord's khas possession. 2. Now, the allegations of the Plaintiff are that the Defendant bus not complied with the terms of his lease, that he has never applied for an Ameen, has never had the lands measured, and has never made a settlement with the landlord in accordance with the result of the measurement. According to the Plaintiff the Defendant has forfeited his tenancy ; and so the Plaintiff seeks to eject him. 3. The pleadings of the Defendant were that no notice had been served upon him and that therefore he could not be ejected. He further stated that subsequent to 1286 the Plaintiff had taken rent from him, and finally he urged that the Plaintiff could not recover khas possession. On these pleadings the suit went to trial, and both the lower Courts have given the Plaintiff a decree for possession. The grounds upon which the Subordinate Judge has held that the Plaintiff is entitled to possession are, first, that the Defendant by not bringing the land into cultivation and by not applying for an Ameen has forfeited his tenancy ; secondly, that no rent has been received by the Plaintiff for any of the naiabadi land, and, thirdly, that the suit is not barred as the Defendant has, never claimed to hold the land adversely to the Plaintiff. 4. The Defendant now appeals to this. 4. The Defendant now appeals to this. Court ; and it has been urged on his behalf that the decree of the lower Appellate Court is wrong and that the Plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for ejectment in this case. 5. We think that we must give effect to this plea. It is to be noticed that this cause comes from the district of Manbhoom, where the Rent Act is Act X of 1859. Therefore this case must be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of that Act, and not in accordance with the provisions of any other law. Now we think it is clear that the Defendant, having been put in occupation of the land in 1876, and having continued in occupation ever since has now acquired rights of occupancy in the land. Under cl. 5 of sec. 23 of Act X of 1859, the Defendant was clearly liable to ejectment and cancelment of his lease on account of a breach of the conditions of his contract, and we therefore think that as the Defendant has clearly broken the conditions of his lease as above specified, he is liable to be ejected in this case. 6. It remains to be considered whether he is liable to be ejected without service on him of a notice to quit. The Subordinate Judge has not decided that question. He has apparently relied upon the case which has been cited by learned counsel for the Respondent, namely, the case of Ram Lal Patak v. Dina Nath Patak I. L. R. 23 Cal. 200 (1895), in which it has been held that the suit itself is a sufficient notice to quit. 7. The decision in this case appears to have proceeded upon the case of Hem Chunder Ghose v. Radha Pershad Paleet 23 W. R. 440 (1875), which, however, was at the time of the passing of this judgment overruled by the Full Bench case of Rajendro Nath Mookerjee v, Raseedur Rahaman Khundkar 25 W. R. 329 : s. c. I. L. R. 2 Cal. 146 (1876) and from the report of the argument in that case it will be seen that the case of Hem Chunder Ghose v. Radha Pershad Paleet 23 W. R. 440 (1875) was cited before the Full Bench and was therefore considered and impliedly set aside. 146 (1876) and from the report of the argument in that case it will be seen that the case of Hem Chunder Ghose v. Radha Pershad Paleet 23 W. R. 440 (1875) was cited before the Full Bench and was therefore considered and impliedly set aside. Therefore if we were of opinion that this case was strictly applicable to the present case, we should have had to consider whether it would not be our duty to refer to a Full Bench the question whether the case of Ram Lal Patak v. Dina Nath Patak I. L. R. 23 Cal. 200 (1895) has been rightly decided. But we are relieved from the necessity of doing so by observing that the case of Ram Lal Patak v. Dina Nath Patak I. L. R. 23 Cal. 200 (1895) does not relate to an agricultural holding at all but to a bari or plot of homestead land and in these circumstances we do not think we are bound to follow it. 8. That being so, we must remand the case to the lower Appellate Court to decide whether in this case notice to quit was served on the Defendant or not. It appears to us that if no notice to quit was served, then the suit must be dismissed, inasmuch as the Plaintiff has not by a notice determined the relationship of landlord and tenant which has previously existed between him and the Defendant. It is a well-known rule of the law of landlord and tenant that the relation must be determined before the landlord can eject his tenant, and it is also a well-known principle of procedure that a cause of action must be complete before the institution of a suit. So that the relation of landlord and tenant must be determined not by means of a suit but by means of a notice, or in some other way, antecedently to the institution of a suit. 9. The case is therefore remanded to the lower Appellate Court. If the Subordinate Judge finds that no notice was served upon the Defendant, he should dismiss the Plaintiffs prayer for the ejectment of the Defendant. If, however, he finds that a proper notice to quit has been served upon the Defendant, then he will decree the suit and dismiss the appeal. The costs will abide the result.