JUDGMENT Richard Harington and Asutosh Mookerjee, JJ. - This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for ejectment, and, in the alternative, for assessment of rent u/s 157 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. 2. It appears that the first defendant alone is registered as tenant in respect of the disputed land in the books of the landlord, though the second and the third defendants also are jointly interested in the tenancy. The plaintiff sued the first defendant for, recovery of arrears of rent. That defendant denied the title of the plaintiff, and the result was that the action for rent was dismissed. The plaintiff now sues to eject all the defendants on the ground that the tenancy has been forfeited by disclaimer. He also prays that, if the tenancy has not been forfeited, fair and equitable rent may be assessed. 3. The Court of first instance declared the title of the plaintiff, but dismissed the claim both for possession and assessment of rent. Upon appeal by the plaintiff, the Subordinate Judge has declared that the title of the first defendant as tenant has been forfeited; but he has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for possession, as the second and third defendants are not liable to be ejected. 4. In the present appeal, it has been argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the tenancy has been forfeited, and that he is entitled to eject all the three defendants. It has been contended in substance that as the first defendant was allowed by the co-sharers to represent them in the books of the landlord, the disclaimer by him operates as a forfeiture of the tenancy in respect of all the persons interested therein. In our opinion, this argument is obviously fallacious. 5. It may be conceded that as the first defendant represented the tenancy in the books of the landlord, he was The taken in not a clear as have that he to on from But is reason for the of and p be It should entitled bind ?his co-sharers purposes tenancy; but when repudiated tenancy, Stust acted beyond scope authority. Consequently, his disclaimer operate so far second third are concerned. further cannot forfeiture part. position, therefore, subsists, suit ejectment must fail. there no why plaintiff realise rent all defendants footing tenancy still continues.