Dwarka Prasad Singh and Others vs Babu Lal Singh and Others

Agarwala, 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 Prasad Singh v. Mathura Kuar A.I.R.1922. Pat. 608 by a Division Bench of this Court. The learned advocate for the appellants relies on a later Division Bench decision in Rambeas Tewari v. Akhauri Raj Mohan Sahay A.I.R.1932. Pat. 304 in which it was held that the effect of not inducting 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 in direct conflict with the decision of the former Division Bench, and I am bound by the first decision until it has been over, ruled 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 and 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.