JUDGMENT Ganga Nath, J.
1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by Harish Chander and Shiv Kumar plaintiffs against Murli, Baldeo and Mangal for arrears of rent from Kharif, 1341 to Rabi 1342 Fasli. The defendants contended that they had paid the rent in question in good faith to Lakshmi Narain. Under the provisions of Section 270, Agra Tenancy Act (No. 3 of 1926) Lakshmi Narain was impleaded as a defendant. The trial Court found that the rent had been paid by the aforesaid tenants to Lakshmi Narain, but not in good faith, and it decreed the suit. The tenants went up in appeal and impleaded Lakshmi Narain appellant as a pro forma respondent. The lower Appellate Court found that the rent had been paid by the tenants in good faith. It set aside the decree' of the trial Court against the tenants, but decreed the suit against Lakshmi Narain, who, as already stated, had been impleaded as a pro forma respondent. Lakshmi Narain has come here in second appeal. It has been contended for the appellant that no decree could be passed against him in this suit. Lakshmi Narain, as already stated, was impleaded as a defendant in the trial Court under Section 270, Agra Tenancy Act (No. 3 of 1926), which lays down:
(1) When in any suit brought under this Act:
(a) by a landholder against a tenant for arrears of rent, or
(b) by a tenant against a landholder to contest a distraint for arrears of rent, the tenant pleads that he has paid the rent of the holding for the period in respect of which the suit is brought or the distraint made to a third person to whom he has in good faith been paying the rent of the holding up to the date of institution of the suit or the date of the distraint, such person shall, at the cost of the plaintiff, be made a defendant in the suit, and the question of the payment of rent in good faith to such third person by the tenant shall be inquired into.
(2) If the question is determined in favour of the tenant, the suit shall be decided in his favour and he shall not be made a party to any subsequent suit between the landholder and the third person for the recovery of the amount so paid or for the determination of the proprietary right in the holding.
2. According to the provisions of Clause (1), the question of the payment of rent in good faith to such third person by the tenant shall be inquired into. According to the provisions of Clause (2), if the question is determined in favour of the tenant, the suit shall be decided in his favour, that is, the suit will be dismissed against him. According to Clause (2), the tenant shall not be made a party to any subsequent suit between the landholder and the third person for the recovery of the amount so paid or for the determination of the proprietary right in the holding. This clause contemplates a separate suit which may be brought by the landholder to recover his arrears of rent from the third person to whom the tenant might have paid the rent in question in good faith, or to get his proprietary right in the holding determined against the third person.
3. No appeal was filed by the plaintiff against the decision of the trial Court. Section 270, Tenancy Act, does not provide for the passing of any decree against the third person who may be impleaded under its provisions, and the reason is obvious. No one can say what would be the position of the third person to whom the rent might have been paid by a tenant. If a third person has realized the rent from a tenant without any right whatsoever, a suit for recovery of the money which he has realized would not lie in the Revenue Court; a suit for determination of the plaintiffs' proprietary right in the holding may be necessary. If the third person were a cosharer and had any right to have any share in the rents as such, a question of accounts would arise, which cannot be decided in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent against a tenant. In the present suit therefore a decree cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the appellant. It is therefore ordered that the appeal be allowed with costs, the decree of the lower Appellate Court be set aside and the plaintiff's suit be dismissed against the appellant. The appellant will recover his costs of the appeal from the plaintiff.