1. This appeal arises out of the following circumstances: A Nawab gave a lease of a certain Mahal to two person, the present plaintiff, Msammat Jeoni, and one Mubarak Ali. Mubarak Ali died some time ago leaving a son and a widow, Musammat Jannat, The son has since died and his widow, Jannat, is alive. The plaintiff as a lessee brought r suit for recovery of the 'ent for certain year from Kallu, a tenant. The defense pleaded by Kallu was that he had all along paid the rent to Mubarak Ali during his lifetime and since his death Musammat Jannat has been collecting rent from the defendant up to this day this defendant has hivd no concern with Musammat Jeoni. It will appear from the statement of defence above referred to that the defendant nowhere pleaded that he had paid the rent in good faith to Musammat Jannat. The learned Assistant Collector dismissed the suit and the dismissal has been confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. After be had filed his defense, the defendant tenant paid off the rent for the years in suit to Musimmat Jannat and Musammat Jannat who had been impleaded as a party later on admitted having received the rent. The point raised before us is, that the defendant not having alleged that he had paid the rent in good faith to Musammat Jannat, Section 198 has no application. The question whether Jannat would be entitled to the rent does not arise in his case as the rent had not been paid to her before the suit was brought. Musammat Jeoni, the plaintiff-appellant, is one of the lessees and as such is entitled to receive the rent. That Section 198 does not apply to a case like the present is clear from the decision of a Bench of this Court in Sheodihal Singh v. Badri Narain 8 Ind. Cas. 1098 : 7 A.L.J. 1198 : 33 A. 61. If that section were meant to apply to cases in which the defendant had only to allege that he was going to pay rent to a certain person in good faith there would have been no end of the litigation. He might one day say that he was willing to pay the rent to A, whom he thought to the person entitled to it, and in another suit by A he might plead that, since then, he has found that 0 was the real owner and that he was to pay to him in good faith. We think that the view taken by the learned Judges who decided the case above-mentioned was a correct view. The result of our observation is that the plaintiff's claim was bound to succeed. We, therefore, set aside the decrees of the Courts below and decree the plaintiff's claim with costs in all Courts.