Dwarka Prasad Singh and Others vs Babu Lal Singh and Others

Agarwal, J.—The suit of the appellants for rent of a holding has been dismissed on the ground that it was a suit for only a part of the holding. Such a suit has been held not to be maintainable Keshava Prashad Singh v. Mathura Kuar 69 Ind. Cas. 704 : AIR 1922 Pat. 608 : (1922) Pat. 336 by a Division Bench of this Court. The learned Advocate for the appellants relies on a later Division Bench decision in Rambeas Tewari and Others Vs. Akhauri Raj Mohan Sahay and Others, , in which it was held that the effect of not including a portion of the holding would not be to make the suit not maintainable at all but that such a suit must be regarded as a suit for money and not a suit for rent.

This observation in the later case is m direct conflict with the decision of the former Division Bench, and I am bound by the First decision until it has been overruled by a Bench having power to overrule it I may observe incidentally that I fail to understand how a suit for rent of a holding can, be regarded as a mere money suit, since the only liability of the defendant in such, a suit is the relationship of landlord and tenant by reason of which he is bound to pay rent. A single Judge of this Court in a recent case, Janki Singh and Others Vs. Jevanandan Singh and Others, , has followed the later case on the ground that in the former case it did not appear that the question of passing a money decree was considered in that case. The reason why that question was not considered is perfectly obvious. The learned Judges in the former suit held that a suit for rent of a part of the holding was not maintainable at all if it was not maintainable. I fail to understand how a money decree can be passed in it. This appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs. Leave to appeal under the Letters Patent is refused.