H.G. Richards, C.J. and Banerji, J.
1. In our opinion the decision of the court below was correct. It is admitted that the defendant was declared an insolvent and that declaration was in full force and effect at the time when this suit was instituted. Section 16(2) expressly provides] that, save as in that section provided, no suit shall be brought against a person who is declared an insolvent without the leave of the court. It is not contended that any leave was obtained. It is next urged that this is a suit for rent brought by a landlord against a tenant and that the landlord ought to be considered a secured creditor having regard to the definition in Section 2(f). In our opinion, so far as an ordinary suit for rent is concerned, the landlord is in exactly the same position as any other creditor. It may, no doubt, be that he would have a right to distrain for his rent notwithstanding the declaration of insolvency. The words of Section 16, Sub-section (5), are 'nothing in this section shall affect the power of any secured creditor to realize or otherwise deal with his security in the same manner as he would have been entitled to realize or deal with it if this section had not been passed.' It is quite clear that this clause only refers to dealings with the securities of a secured ereditor. It does not apply to the ease of a suit for rent.
2. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.