1. In this appeal the respondent is not represented. The appellant was the plaintiff in the Court of first instance. He brought a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent against the respondent for, a period of three years, namely, Babi of 1324 Fasli, complete 1325 and 1326 Faslis and Khar if 1327 Fasli. He showed in his claim that his claim in respect of 1324 Fasli was for a holding of 17 bighas, 17 Uswas, In 1325 Fasli it was for a holding of 33 bighas, 12 biswas. In 1326 Fasli it was for a holding of 33 bighas 12 biswas and in 1327 Fasli it was for a holding of 17 bighas, 17 biswas. The rent alleged varied in different years. The defendant contended in his written statement that it was not open to the plaintiff to join a claim for occupancy and non-occupancy holdings, that is to say, he could not combine suits in respect of different engagements. This plea found favour with both the Courts below.
2. The Court of first insfcance dismissed the suit in toto but the learned Judge gave a decree for the Babi of 1824 Fasli aftejp deduction of what had been admittedly paid by the defendant for that period.
3. In second appeal it was contended before a learned Judge of this Court that the view taken by the Courts below was erroneous. The learned Judge before whom the appeal came on for hearing remitted three issues enquiring whether the areas of 17 bighas, 17 biswas and the larger area were hold under the same engagement or different engagements. The findings returned were that there was a holding of 17 bighas and 17 biswas and there was another holding for some additional land in the years 1325 and 1326 Faslis.
4. In the case of Jaggannath Prasad v. Tori 3 A.L.J. 611 : A.W.N. (1906) 268 : 29 A. 18, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of two Judges held that it was not open to a land-holder to sue a tenant in the same suit in respect of different holdings. It was laid down in that case very distinctly that the Tenancy Act contemplated that there should be different suits in respect of different holdings. That ruling still holds good and has not been dissented from so far as I am aware. It is quite dear that, in view of that ruling, this suit of the plaintiffs was not maintainable.
5. I am now asked to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint and thereby to withdraw the claim which related to the additional lands in two years, namely, 1325 and 1326 Faslis. The ruling quoted above was quoted in the judgment of the learned Assistant Collector, but in the teeth of this ruling the appellant filed this appeal in the lower Court and in this Court, without even asking for permission to amend his plaint. It has been argued before me that it was the duty of the Court to order a separate trial in causes where different causes of action had been joined and Order II, Ruler 6 of the Civil Procedure Code has been relied upon. That rule of law applies only when it is open to a plaintiff to combine several causes of action in one suit. In the ruling quoted, it has been distinctly laid down that the rule of the Civil Procedure Code as to the joinder of causes of action does not apply to suits for rent under the Tenancy Act.
6. It follows that it was not open to the plaintiff to combine separate causes of action in one suit and as it was not permitted to the plaintiff, no question of an order by a Court for separate trials of different causes of action could arise.
7. The result is that the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs as the respondent is not represented.