1. This is a suit in which the plaintiffs seek to recover the arrears of rent in respect of the last kist of 1307 to the end of 1311. They are met by the answer that the case falls under article 2 (b) of the third schedule of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The question thus arises whether the plaintiffs are landlords under paragraph (1) of that article, and it is difficult to see how they got the property in any other way. It is true that the lease in respect of which they sued terminated in 1311 and when the suit was brought in 1313 they were no longer landlords to the defendants. But we cannot disregard the fact that they have sued in their capacity of landlords to enforce the rights which they had as landlords. This view seems to be supported by the decision of this Court in Maharoj Bahadur Singh v. A.H. Forbes 7 C.L.J. 652 : 35 C. 737 and indeed it is difficult to see how consistently with principle any other rule can prevail, for otherwise it would be open to the landlords by delaying to bring their suit to prolong the period in which they might bring it, which seems to be wholly inconsistent with the principles of the law of limitation. We hold, therefore, that this case is properly governed by the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act.
2. A minor point is raised on behalf of the appellants, that under the provisions of the article to which we have referred they are entitled to the whole of the rent for 1310 as well as that of 1311 they having brought their suit in Bysack 1313, It is admitted by the respondents that this is so, and as the lower Court has only given a portion of the rent due for 1310 the decree must be modified so as to give them the whole of the rent for the whole year.
3. The result is that the appeal is allowed and the decree of the lower Court must be modified as we have said.
4. The appellants are entitled to proportionate costs.