1. The two appeals Nos. 1514 and 1515 of 1912 are connected. They arise out of two suits brought by Lala Debi Prasad for arrears of rent against 2 sets of tenants. One of the pleas in defence was that Lala Debi Prasad being only one of the co-sharers could not sue alone for the recovery of the arrears of rent. The plea was based upon the provisions of Section 194 of the Tenancy Act. The Courts below disallowed the said plea and decreed the claims. In the two appeals before me the only ground urged is that the lower Courts were in error in not giving effect to the provisions of Section 194 of the Tenancy Act. It was decided in a case between Debi Prasad and some of the co-sharers that the tenants-defendants in the present suits were the tenants of all the co-sharers. The language of Section 194 of Act II of 1901 is clear. One of the several co-sharers cannot sue alone unless there is a local custom or special contract to the contrary. No such local custom or special contract is alleged to exist in the present case. The contention for the appellants, therefore, prevails. I accept the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower Court and dismiss the claim of the plaintiff -respondent; In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.