JUDGMENT : STANLEY, BURKITT, JJ. The sum involved in this appeal is 9 annas, 3 pies, but the learned vakil on behalf of the appellant stated to us that there was an important question of principle involved in the appeal, and we have heard the arguments at very considerable length. The suit was brought under section 102 of Act No. II of 1901 to recover arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1-11. The principal defendant Ram Das admitted that the arrears were due, but he pleaded that one Badri Narain Singh, who was no party to the suit, had purchased the share of the property in respect of which the arrears had accrued and that Badri Narain Singh had prohibited him from making any payment of rent. The meaning of the defence of Ram Das is that he was quite willing to pay his rent, but that he really did not know to whom he should pay it and therefore had not paid it. At his own instance Badri Narain was made a party to the suit. The court of first instance decreed the claim and from this decision Badri Narain appealed, the result of the appeal being that the learned District Judge modified the decree and awarded to Sheo Dihal, the plaintiff before the Court, I anna, 10 pies, out of the rent claimed, and to Raj Narain, who was a co-plaintiff, 9 annas, 3 pies. From this appellate decree the present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff Sheodihal Singh. The important question of principle which we are told is involved in this appeal is that the person who preferred the appeal to the lower appellate court is Badri Narain, who was not a party to the original proceedings, but had been placed in the array of parties by the court at his own instance. It is contended that an intervenor, such as he, under the circumstances has no right to appeal and that therefore the appeal ought not to have been entertained. For this contention reliance is placed upon section 198 of the Agra Tenancy Act, Act No. II of 1901, it being contended that the only remedy which was open to Badri Narain was to institute a suit in the civil court to have his rights established. For this contention reliance is placed upon section 198 of the Agra Tenancy Act, Act No. II of 1901, it being contended that the only remedy which was open to Badri Narain was to institute a suit in the civil court to have his rights established. That section applies to a case where a tenant who has been impleaded by a landlord, and who has actually and in good faith paid the rent of his holding to some third person, pleads such payment. The court in such case is bound to entertain the question of the alleged payment and to inquire into it, and if the question is decided in favour of the defendant, dismiss the suit. That section has no application to the present case, for the simple reason that the defendant Ram Das did not in this case plead that the relation of landlord and tenant did not subsist between the plaintiff and himself; and he has not paid to any body any portion of the rent of the holding which is the subject-matter of the suit. It appears to us therefore that there is no substance in the question of principle which has been raised and that the appeal in this respect has no force. As regards the important question of fact as to whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to the few annas which is claimed in the appeal, we have read with very great care the judgments of the lower court and having given our best consideration to those judgments we see no reason to differ from the conclusion at which the learned District Judge arrived. We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.