JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. This was a suit for arrears of rent for the years 1306 and 1307 Fasli. The plaintiffs alleged that in those years the defendants were their tenants, and were liable to pay rent. The defendants have been ejected under proceedings under the Rent Act, and the arrears are claimed for the period prior to the ejectment. The defendants denied that they were the plaintiff's tenants. The courts below have found upon this point against the defendants. It has also been found that no rate of rent was agreed upon between the parties, and it is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff did not get the rent-assessed by an order of the Revenue Court. That being so, the defendants rightly contend on the rulings of this Court that a suit for arrears of rent cannot be maintained against themselves. 2. This was held in Radha Prasad Singh v. Jugal Das,[1886] I.L.R., 9 All., 185; Debt Singh v. Jhanno Kuar[1894] I.L.R., 16 All., 209; Debi Singh v. Muhammad Ismail Khan,[1898] A.W.N., 38, In all these cases the principle was laid down that in the case of agricultural tenants, if the landholder wishes to get rent for the period of tenancy, he must either come to an agreement with the tenant as to the rent to be paid or, get the rent fixed, by means of an application under Act No. XII of 1881, which is the Act applicable to the present case. That being the course of rulings of this Court, I am bound to give effect to it and to hold that as the rent payable by the defendants was neither agreed upon nor fixed by an order of the Revenue Court, the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover-arrears of rent by a suit in the Revenue Court. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The decrees of the courts below are set aside, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs in all Courts.