JUDGMENT Pratt, J. - This suit for the recovery of arrears of rent was brought by all the co-sharer landlords. The Munsif held that it was not maintainable because the Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 had for 25 years been collecting half the rent separately and the remaining Plaintiff's Nos. 3 to 12, the other half. The District Judge on appeal held that the suit was maintainable as the co-sharer landlords have a cause of action in which they are jointly interested. It is contended here that the District Judge was wrong. Is was conceded at the hearing before me that there has been no division of the tenure. It was, moreover, held in the cases of Guni Mahamad v. Moran ILR 4 Cal. 96 (1879) and of Gopal Chunder Das v. Umesh Norain Chowdhury ILR 17 Cal. 695 (1890), that an arrangement under which fractional shares of the rent are paid separately to the different co-sharers, does not give rise to a separate tenancy and is perfectly consistent with the continuance of the original lease of the entire tenure. Such an arrangement which was made for mutual convenience cannot, I think, bind the parties for all time, but may be put an end to by the tenant or by the landlords collectively though not by one of the landlords against the consent of the others. See Raja Promoda Nath Roy v. Raja Ramoni Kant Ray 9 C.W.N. 34 (1904). In that case Mr. Justice Ghose observed "no doubt the original lease has not been put an end to by the arrangement that has been come to between the parties as to separate payment of rent, and if the co-sharers agree they might jointly maintain a suit for recovery of the whole rent." The landlords wish to revert to the original condition of things, and thus to obtain the advantage of a decree under the Bengal Tenancy Act. I see nothing in principle, which should prevent them from doing so if they are all agreed. No specific agreement has been set up by the tenants and it would not be just to presume that the landlords intended to contract them-selves out of the benefit of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and that too without valid consideration. 2. The learned pleader for the Respondents raised a preliminary objection that a second appeal is barred by sec. No specific agreement has been set up by the tenants and it would not be just to presume that the landlords intended to contract them-selves out of the benefit of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and that too without valid consideration. 2. The learned pleader for the Respondents raised a preliminary objection that a second appeal is barred by sec. 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, as the amount sued for is Rs. 99-3-0. I am inclined to think that this objection is correct, but as the point is a somewhat doubtful one, I have deemed it advisable to deal with the question of law raised by the Appellants. In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs.