JUDGMENT
Banerji and Richards, JJ.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent which has been dismissed by the Courts below. In his plaint the plaintiff claimed Rs. 549-14-0 as arrears of rent in respect of 186 bighas, 11 biswas, for the year 1310 Fasli. In the statement he made in the Court of first instance he alleged that the defendants held the whole of the land under a single lease. This allegation has been found to be untrue, and it has been found that the land in question consists of various holdings which have come into the defendants’ possession at different times upon separate engagements for payment of rent. The Court of first instance upon this finding dismissed the suit on the ground that a single suit cannot be brought for arrears due in respect of separate holdings. This decree having been affirmed by the lower appellate Court, the present appeal has been preferred. The first contention urged before us is that, having regard to the provisions of Section 45 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a single suit was maintainable. We are unable to agree with the contention that that section is applicable to a suit like the present. Section 193 of the Tenancy Act provides that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to the procedure in all suits and other proceedings under the Act “so far as they are not inconsistent therewith.” We think it would be inconsistent with the provisions of the Tenancy Act to hold that Section 45 of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply, and that a single suit can be brought for arrears of rent in respect of a number of separate holdings. Under Section 57 of the Tenancy Act a tenant is liable to ejectment from his holding if a decree for arrears of rent in respect of that holding remains unsatisfied. If a joint suit for the rent of separate holdings were allowed to be brought, it would be difficult to give effect to the provisions of Section 57. The whole tenure of the Tenancy Act shows that a separate suit should be brought for arrears of rent in respect of each holding. As observed by the Court of first instance, the object of the plaintiff in bringing a single suit appears to be that he might get a single decree and under that decree eject the defendants from their occupancy as well as non-occupancy holdings. This certainly is not what the law contemplates; but that would be the result if a single suit were to be brought for arrears of rent due in respect of separate holdings. We think the conclusion at which the Courts below have arrived is right.
2. It is next urged that the plaintiff should have been given the option of withdrawing a portion of his claim. This he did not ask for in the Courts below. On the contrary he appealed to the lower appellate Court on the ground that the defendants held under a single lease. Under these circumstances the Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit. We dismiss the appeal, but without costs, as the respondents are not represented.
