JUDGMENT : Rafiq, J. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellants to eject the defendant-respondent, on the allegation that he was a non-occupancy tenant of the plots from which he was sought to be ejected. He resisted the suit on several grounds. He said that the plaintiffs-appellants could not sue alone as the lands in respect of which ejectment was sought were part of a joint Khata and there were other co-sharers of that Khata, including the defendant-respondent himself. It was further urged in defence that the defendant respondent having become a co-sharer in the joint Khata was not a mere non-occupancy tenant and could not be ejected. The court of first instance decreed the claim. On appeal, the learned District Judge held that the plaintiffs-appellants could not sue alone in view of the provisions of section 194 of Act II of 1901. The plaintiffs have come up in second appeal to this Court. They contend that, as they are the Lambardars of the Mahal in which the defendant-respondent is a tenant, they can sue to eject him, the provisions of section 194 of the Tenancy Act, notwithstanding. In support of this contention reliance is placed on a ruling of the Board of Revenue of 1903. That was the case of Dipa v. Udai, [1303] Board of Revenue Decision No. G., where the Lambardars sued under Chapter X to resume a rent-free grant. The Board of Revenue held that such a suit was maintainable by Lambardars and also made certain observations as to the general powers of a Lambardar. Mr. Agarwala, in his commentary on the N.W.P. Tenancy Act, discusses that ruling at page 155 and shows that the view taken by the Board of Revenue is incorrect. I agree with the remarks of the learned author. It has not been shown by reference to any of the provisions of the N.W.P. Tenancy Act, or of the Land Revenue Act, that a Lambardar by the mere fact of being a Lambardar can sue to eject a tenant without joining the other co-sharers, in a case in which the Khata is joint. The case of Bishambhar Nath v. Bhullo, [1911] I.L.R. 34 All., 98, is also against the contention of the appellants. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.