JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. and Pargiter, J. - The question in this case is whether the provisions of sec. 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act apply to the case of a suit by a co-sharer landlord. It is urged that no appeal lies from the decree in this case by reason of the provisions of that section. This would appear to depend upon whether or not the suit was instituted by the landlord for the recovery of rent within the meaning of that section. It is a suit by a co-sharer landlord and not by all the landlords. Sec. 153 must be read with sec. 188 and it has been held by two or three decisions of this Court, that the Bengal Tenancy Act does not apply to the case of a suit for the recovery of rent by a co-sharer landlord. The principle underlying the Full Bench case of Beni Madhab Roy v. Joad Ali Sircar I. L. R. 17 Cal. 390 (1890) shows that the Act does not apply to a suit by a co-sharer landlord. If the suit is one to which the Act does not apply sec. 153 cannot apply. The same principle would appear to be involved in the cases of Kedar Nath Chatterjee v. Ardha Chandra Roy Chawdhury 5 C. W. N. 763 (1901), and of Durga Charan Mondal v. Kali Prosanna Sarkar 3 C. W. N. 586 : s. c. I. L. R. 26 Cal. 727 (1899). There it was held that a "decree for rent obtained by some of certain co-sharer landlords and not by the whole body of them is not a decree under the Bengal Tenancy Act." In the state of the authorities I do not think that sec. 153 can apply to the present case. 2. The appeal, therefore, must be allowed and the case go back to the Subordinate Judge to be tried on the merits. The Appellant must have his costs before the Subordinate Judge and before this Court.