JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - This Rule has been obtained by the Plaintiffs and is directed against an order of the Munsif staying the suit under the provisions of the Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. The Opposite Party Defendant held under a kabuliyat for two years. Under the terms of the kabidiyat the total rent was Rs. 44 to be paid in four kists. The present suit was instituted to recover Rs. 22 on account of rent and for ejectment. The question for determination is whether the suit is one for ejectment of the Defendant, on account of non-payment of rent. The interpretation of this provision of the Act has led to a great divergence of judicial opinion. I venture to hope that when the Act next comes before the Legislature advantage will be taken of the opportunity to clarify the position. For the purpose of the present Rule, however, I need only repeat what I have said on previous occasions. The Petitioners are supported by the decision of my Lord the Chief Justice and my learned brother Gentle in the case of Radhikalal Goswami v. Gopeswar Basu 46 C. W. N. 1025 I shall follow that decision unless it is overruled by a Full Bench. 2. A new point, however, is raised in the present Rule as it has been suggested by the Opposite Party that the present claim for rent is nothing more than a dodge to deprive the Opposite Party of the benefits of the Act. 3. I am clearly of opinion that a Plaintiff cannot deprive a Defendant of the protection given him by the Act merely by putting forward a false claim for arrears of rent. When the Defendant raises such a plea it becomes the duty of the Court to see whether the Plaintiffs' claim is a mere pretence, and if it is, to stay the suit in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 4. In view, however, of the materials on the record no useful purpose will be served by remanding the case in order that the Munsif might consider the matter from this point of view. In the written statement it was admitted that Rs. 22 was due as arrears of rent and the Opposite Party paid it into Court. The Plaintiffs gave notice of reentry on 21st May, 1941. On 29th May, 1941, the Opposite Party sent Rs. In the written statement it was admitted that Rs. 22 was due as arrears of rent and the Opposite Party paid it into Court. The Plaintiffs gave notice of reentry on 21st May, 1941. On 29th May, 1941, the Opposite Party sent Rs. 11 by money order which the Petitioners refused. This was obviously a dodge, not of the Petitioners, but of the Opposite Party. As, however, a part of the rent has admittedly neither been paid nor tendered it would be absurd to suggest that the Petitioners' claim for rent is a mere pretence. The Rule is accordingly made absolute. The order of the Munsif is set aside and I direct him to hear and determine the suit in accordance with law. Costs of this Rule will be costs in the suit-hearing-fee in this Court one gold mohur.