JUDGMENT Yorke, J. - This second appeal is concluded by a decision of a Full Bench of this Court. The plaintiff, Raja Surya Pal Singh had sued to recover Arrears of rent' of the years Rabi 1342, 1343 Kharif 1344, 1345, 1346 and 1347 Fasli under the provisions of the I.P. Tenancy Act 1939. The suit was not contested, but the Court had to consider the question whether the arrears of rent of years prior to the year 1345 Fasli were or were not affected by the provisions of the U.P. Stayed Arrears of Rent (Remission) Act (Act 18 [XVIII] of 1939), inasmuch as the institution of any suit at the appropriate date for the recovery of those arrears had been or would have been stayed under the provisions of the U.P. Stay of Proceedings (Revenue Courts) Act, 1937. Section 5 of Act 18 [XVIII] of 1939, provides that the provisions of S. 3 of this Act, (which remits those stayed arrears) shall not apply to a suit or application instituted or made against any person, the rent payable by whom in the year 1344 Fasli was more than five hundred rupees. In regard to this provision two views are possible. One is that as each and every tenant of a holding is jointly and severally liable for the whole rent of the holding, the rent payable by each and every tenant in respect of that holding for purposes of Act 18 [XVIII] of 1939 is the whole rent of the holding. The other possible view is that the rent of any individual co-sharer of such a holding is his proportionate share of the total rent. The view which was taken by the learned Assistant Collector was the latter view, but on the case going in appeal to the Temporary Civil Judge of Aligarh at Etah, the latter held in favour of the former view and accordingly decreed the plaintiff's suit for arrears not only of 1345, 1346 and 1347 Fasli but also of 1342, 1343 and 1344 Fasli. Subsequent to that decree there has been a decision by a Full Bench of this Court in Raja Surya Pal Singh Vs. Subsequent to that decree there has been a decision by a Full Bench of this Court in Raja Surya Pal Singh Vs. Chiranji and Another, AIR 1944 All 170 by which it has been held that the rent payable by a tenant within the meaning of S. 5 of the Stayed Arrears of Rent (Remission) Act (Local Act 18 [XVIII] of 1939), is his share of all the rents of all the holdings in which he is a tenant. That decision prima facie concludes the present case and has the result that the decree of the lower appellate Court must be set aside and the decree of the trial Court restored. 2. On behalf of the respondent, however, it has been urged, by Mr. Sanyal, that there may have been otter tenancy holdings in which the defendants or some of them were tenants of other zamindars paying so much rent that it would have raised the rent payable by them to more than RS. 500. It will be sufficient to say that had this been the case, it should have been taken in the grounds of appeal in the lower appellate Court and it should have been said that not only was the decision of the Assistant Collector wrong because he had adopted an incorrect interpretation of S. 5 of the Act, but it was also wrong because the defendants by reason of their having holdings in the zamindari of other landlords were even on that view in the position that the rent payable by them was in excess of Rs. 500. As that point was not taken in the lower appellate Court, I am not prepared to entertain it at this stage. In my judgment this appeal must succeed. I accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore the decree of the trial Court. The appellants will be entitled to their costs in this Court and the Court below. The order of the trial Court in regard to costs will stand. Mr. Sanyal asks me to make an order under the proviso to S. 3 of Act 18 [XVIII] of 1939, for the refund of court-fees, but in my judgment such an order cannot be passed because the present suit is not a suit which had actually been stayed under the provisions of the U.P. Stay of Proceedings Act of 1937.