JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule issued upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the District Judge of Jessore, dated the 4th July 1901, purporting to be one under sec. 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, should not be set aside. One Jadab Chandra Bhuttacharjee instituted a suit against the opposite party for the rent of a holding, the period covered being the first half of the Bengali year 1309. The opposite party put in the money sued for in Court under the provisions of sec. 149. Notice was thereupon issued upon the present Plaintiff, who had already obtained a decree against the opposite party in a previous suit for rent. 2. The present Plaintiff omitted to bring a suit, as provided for in sub-sec. (3) of sec. 149, and the amount deposited in Court was paid to Jadab Chandra Bhuttacharjee. Thereafter the present suit was instituted by the present Plaintiff for the rent of the years 1306 to 1309 and for damages. The period for which the rent was claimed included the period for which Jadab Chandra Bhuttacharjee had instituted his suit. 3. An objection was taken before the Munsif that the suit was not maintainable, lie having failed to institute a suit under sub sec. (3) of sec. 149. The Munsif construed sec. 149, and came to the conclusion that so far as the amount covered by the suit of Jadab Chandra Bhuttacharjee was concerned, the suit was not maintainable. But, as regards the rest of the claim the finding of the Munsif was that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the rent was actually payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff: and deducting the portion of the rent which had been taken away by Jadab Chandra Bhuttacharjee, he gave the Plaintiff a decree. The question decided by the Munsif was, therefore, one of construction of sub-sec. 3 of sec. 149 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and one of law and as we shall presently show he was right in the construct ion ho put upon it. 4. The opposite party applied to the District Judge under the proviso to sec. 153 for a revision of the order of the Munsif. The District Judge held that sub-sec. 3, sec. 149 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and one of law and as we shall presently show he was right in the construct ion ho put upon it. 4. The opposite party applied to the District Judge under the proviso to sec. 153 for a revision of the order of the Munsif. The District Judge held that sub-sec. 3, sec. 149 of the Bengal Tenancy Act operated as an absolute bar to the Plaintiff's instituting a suit for rent, he not having instituted a suit, as contemplated by it. 5. The sub-section runs thus :--"Unless the third person within three months from the receipt of the notice institute's a suit against the Plaintiff and therein obtains an order restraining payment out, of the money, it shall he paid out to the Plaintiff on his application.'' The suit contemplated is a suit with reference to the money deposited in Court and for an injunction restraining the paying out of the money. The section does not contemplate a suit for establishment of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties if the Plaintiff in the present case omitted to institute a suit his right was gone as against the opposite party, so far as the rout which was deposited is concerned, and payment having been made to Jadab Chandra Bhuttacharjee he could not recover it. 6. The learned pleader for the opposite party concedes that this is so; and there are authorities in this Court which warrant him in conceding the point. The contention, however, raised by the pleader for the opposite party is that the District Judge exercised a power vested in him by the proviso to see. 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and committed merely an error of law, and therefore we under the powers vested in us by sec. 622 of the Code cannot revise his order. This, we think, is an erroneous view of the matter. The District Judge committed an error of law; and he also acted in contravention of the powers vested in him by the proviso to sec. 153 inasmuch as he interfered with the judgment of the Munsif on a question of law. He therefore acted without jurisdiction in making the order he did; and, sitting as we do in the exercise of the powers vested in us, we are entitled to revise the order erroneously passed. 7. 153 inasmuch as he interfered with the judgment of the Munsif on a question of law. He therefore acted without jurisdiction in making the order he did; and, sitting as we do in the exercise of the powers vested in us, we are entitled to revise the order erroneously passed. 7. The result is that we set aside the order of the District Judge and restore that of the Munsif. We assess the costs of the Petitioner at two gold mohurs.