JUDGMENT : BURKITT, J. This is a suit for recovery of arrears of rent brought by the plaintiff against one Gaya Datt Chaube, a tenant, and also impleading certain co-sharers of the village. The tenant-defendant, Gaya Datt, pleaded that, he had paid the rent to the co-defendant Shujat Ahmad Khan. The latter in his defence acknowledged that he had received the rent from the tenant. That being the case, the court below dismissed the suit. In second appeal no objection is taken on behalf of the appellant to the decree of the court below as far as it dismissed the suit against the tenant, but it is contended that the court below, while dismissing the suit against the tenant, ought to have gone on and given a decree against Shujat Ahmad for the amount of the rent which he had received in excess of his share. I am of opinion that this cannot be done. 2. The suit is one for rent brought against a tenant. It is admitted that the rent was paid to a co-sharer who apparently is entitled to a portion of it, and I cannot allow that in a suit for rent payable by a rent-paying tenant a decree can be given against a co-sharer. If the co-sharer has received more than he is entitled to, the proper remedy is by a suit for profits or settlement of account. I may remark that owing to the peculiar wording of section 198 of Act No. II of 1901, this case cannot come under that section, and as far as my experience goes, the cases that will come under it will be very few. The section differs from section 148 of Act No. XII of 1881 in this that under the provisions of the new Act the question of payment to a third person shall be enquired into when in any suit, against a tenant the defendant pleads that the relation of landlord and tenant does not exist between the plaintiff and himself. No such plea could be raised here as the defendant admittedly is a tenant of all the co-parcenary body. He had thought fit to pay to one co-sharer a larger portion of the rent than, it is said, he was entitled to. To such a case section 198 of the new Act has no application. No such plea could be raised here as the defendant admittedly is a tenant of all the co-parcenary body. He had thought fit to pay to one co-sharer a larger portion of the rent than, it is said, he was entitled to. To such a case section 198 of the new Act has no application. It is difficult to understand why the words mentioned above have been inserted in it. For the above reasons I dismiss the appeal.