JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent brought by a co-sharer landlord, who has been in the habit of collecting his share of the rent separately. The lower Courts have given the Plaintiff a decree. The Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 7 appeal. The grounds of appeal taken are (1) that the rent of 1307 is barred by limitation, and (2) that a suit for rent does not lie against some of several joint tenants. We consider that the appeal must fail on both grounds. The appellant contends on the authority of the case of Jogendra Nath Ghose v. Paban Chandra Ghose 8 C. W. N. 472 (1904), that a suit for rent brought by a co-sharer landlord for his share of the rent, even though he has been in separate collection of that share, is not a suit for rent, but a suit for money and hence, that the period of limitation laid down in Art. 2 (b) of the schedule to the Tenancy Act does not apply. The case relied on is no authority for such a proposition. A suit for rent by a co-sharer landlord who has been in separate collection of his share is a suit for rent. It is not barred by sec. 188. The provisions of Art. 2 (6) of the schedule to the Tenancy Act therefore apply to it. It has been pointed out by Mr. Justice Mitra in his judgment, Jogertdra Nath Ghose v. Paban Chandra Ghose 7 C. W. N. 908 (1903), that suits by co-sharer landlords are ordinary suits under the Act, though the special procedure as to sales in execution of decrees and the incidents of sales are not applicable to such suits. We agree with these views. 2. The second ground also fails. Joint tenants are jointly and severally liable for the rent. To hold that they are only liable each for his own share of the rent, would be directly opposed to the policy of the Act as laid down in sec. 88 of the Act. We dismiss this appeal with costs.