JUDGMENT Piggott, J.
1. This is an application in revision against the decree of a Court of Small Causes. On a broad view of the facts I do not think that the applicant in revision has any grievance; except in a matter of detail with which I propose to deal at the conclusion of this order. The plaintiffs are a firm which had dealings with the defendant in the ordinary course of their business. They chose to bring this suit as one for the balance due on a current account between the parties. The fact is that the plaintiffs were also tenants of the defendant in respect of premises occupied by them, and they purported to credit in favour of the defendant, as against the purchases which the latter made from time to time, the amount of the rent which they owed to him. On this basis they claimed to bring their suit within limitation in respect of transactions long antecedent to the three years' period of limitation which would ordinarily govern a suit for the price of goods sold. The defendant replied that the amount of the rent due to him was grossly under-stated in the plaint and that, as a matter of fact, a very considerable sum would be found due to himself on the balance of the whole account. The Court below went into the matter on issues properly framed in accordance with the pleadings. It came to certain findings of fact in favour of the defend ant and passed a decree in his favour, subject to a proper adjustment of the amount of the Court-fees payable. The application to this Court challenges the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes to deal with the suit at all on the basis on which it did. In substance, the plaintiffs' contention is that the Trial Court could only take cognizance of the issue as to the amount of rent payable, in so far as that issue might lead up to and justify a finding that nothing was due to the plaintiffs' firm; but that it could not admit the claim of the defendant to be given a decree in this very suit for the balance found due to him, if any. I am not satisfied that the cognizance of the Court of Small Causes was, in fact, bared. No doubt the claim of the defendant was for money due to him as rent, but the plaintiffs themselves, in order to bring certain portions of their claim within limitation; had accepted the position that whatever rent was due from them to the defendant was by agreement credited to him, in his ledger account with their firm, as against the price of goods purchased by Him. The counterclaim Would, in any case, not be barred by Article 8 of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, IX of 1887; because that Article only relates to' suits for the recovery of rent other than house rent. The only other Article of the Schedule which was even suggested in argument was Article 31, and I do not think that the suit in question could fairly be described as. a suit "for an account." In any case the learned Judge of this Court before whom this application was laid in the first instance, has by his order of admission expressly restricted the application to one single point, and if I had taken a different view regarding the jurisdiction of the Trial Court, I should not have felt justified in giving effect to that view without some reference to the learned Judge who passed the order of April 27th, 1921, by which the application was admitted. The point which he left open for consideration is a simple one. The defendant to this suit had himself, presumably by way of precaution, brought a suit for arrears of rent which was heard and decided as a regular suit and not under the Small Cause Courts Act. The decision in that suit has been fought up to this Court in second appeal. I do not myself think that the defendant should have been allowed, in effect, to maintain two separate claims in respect of the rent due to him; the result has been that, on the decrees as they stand, the said defendant has, undoubtedly, been decreed a sum of Rs. 140 twice over. It is true that the judgment of the Court below purports to deal with this matter, but I do not think that the order, embodied in the concluding words of the judgment, would really prevent the defendant from taking out execution of the entire decree obtained by Mm in his other suit. My order, therefore, is that the decree of the Court below be modified by reducing the same by a sum of Rs. 140. I leave the parties to bear their own costs of this proceeding.