JUDGMENT Ghose, J. - The suit out of which this appeal arises, and another suit by a rival landlord, which is not now before us, were the outcome of a deposit, made by the tenant holding certain homestead lands, apparently under sec. 61 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. There being a dispute between the two rival landlords as to who is entitled to the rent payable by the Defendant tenant, he made the said deposit. Thereupon, two suits were instituted, one, by the Appellant before us, and the other by the other laudlord, each claiming rent from the tenant Defendant. These suits have been dismissed by the Courts below. The questions that seem to have been discussed in those Courts were whether the tenancy of the Defendant was one that fell within the scope of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and whether under sec. 61 of the said Act the deposit in question could have been made. The Courts below have determined these questions against the land lord and have accordingly dismissed the suit. It appears to me, however, that whether the tenancy of the Defendant falls within the scope of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and whether the deposit in question could have been made under sec. 61 of the said Act, are questions which need not be discussed and determined in this case, and for this simple reason, that whether the deposit could have been made under that Act, as a matter of fact, it was made and the money deposited is available to the party who is rightly entitled to it; and the question should be determined as between the two rival landlords who is entitled to that money. These landlords did not, however, choose to bring the matter before the Court to have the question of title to the rent determined between them, but in each, in his case, raised issues which I think need not, in the circumstances, be discussed. In this view of the matter I am of opinion that the appeal ought to be dismissed with costs. Geidt, J. I agree in dismissing this appeal, but I would base my decision on the ground that the lower Courts were right in holding that sec. 61 of the Bengal Tenancy Act is applicable to the case. Whether that section applies or not depends on the construction of sec. Geidt, J. I agree in dismissing this appeal, but I would base my decision on the ground that the lower Courts were right in holding that sec. 61 of the Bengal Tenancy Act is applicable to the case. Whether that section applies or not depends on the construction of sec. 182 of the Act, which runs thus:--"When a raiyat holds his homestead otherwise than as part of his holding as a raiyat, the incidents of his tenancy of the homestead shall be regulated by local custom or usage, and, subject to local custom or usage, by the provisions of this Act applicable to land held by a raiyat." Now, in this case the Defendant is a raiyat. He has a holding as a raiyat and he holds his homestead otherwise than as part of his holding as a raiyat. It is also conceded that there is no local usage or custom in this case. It follows that the incidents of the Defendant's tenancy of the homestead are regulated by the provisions of the Act applicable to land held by a raiyat, and that he was under sec. 61 entitled to deposit his rent in Court, as he was doubtful which of the Plaintiffs in the two cases was his landlord each of them having recovered a decree for rent against him in respect of the homestead. 2. The learned vakil for the Appellants contends that under sec. 182, the homestead and the other holding must both be held under the same landlord before that section is applicable. It appears to me that this interpretation involves a reading into the section of words which are not to be found there. The section in my opinion is quite clear and in terms applies to the present ease. In my opinion both the lower Courts were right in the view taken by them, and on this ground I agree in dismissing the appeal with costs.