1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant No. 1 against the judgment of the learned District Judge of Jessore, dated the 9th January 1917, reversing the decision of the Munsif at Narail. The plaintiffs brought the suit to recover rent in arrears, the amount sought to be recovered being Rs, 100. The facts are these: The defendant No. 2 is an occupancy raiyat. He granted a lease to the defendant No. 1, which was in excess of the term as authorized by Section 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Of course, there is an estoppel between the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2. Subsequent to the grant of that lease to the defendant No. 1, the defendant No. 2 purported to create an intermediate tenancy in favour of the plaintiffs. Again that lease was apparently unauthorized by the terms of Section 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs then sued for rent, making the defendant No. 1 principal defendant and the defendant No. 2 the 2nd defendant. The case went to trial and the first Court dismissed the suit. On appeal to the learned District Judge he reversed that decision. The defendant No. 1 appeals to this Court against the decision of the learned District Judge. What is found by the learned District Judge is this: first of all he has found the genuineness of these two leases by the defendant No. 2. He has found that, although the defendant No. 2, who is a resident of Mymensingh, did not enter appearance in the suit, he was represented by his son and that the son gave evidence admitting the lease that had been granted by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the plaintiffs, that is, as I read it, that the defendant No. 2's son and authorized agent came forward in Court and made a statement in Court that the rent in respect of the holding was not payable to the defendant No. 2 but to the plaintiffs. That being so, it seems to me that the case is covered by the decision of Mr. Justice Mookerjee and Mr. Justice Beachcroft in Sukumari Gupta v, Bharat Mandal 26 Ind. Cas. 980 : 20 C.L.J. 148, the passage referred to being at the bottom of page 151 Page of 20 C.L.J.--Ed. In that view of the case, the defendant No. 2 and the plaintiffs having agreed between them that the rent is payable to the plaintiffs, it is not competent to the defendant No. 1 to contest the plaintiffs' claim. In the result I think the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Judge of the Court of Appeal below is correct. The present appeal, therefore, fails and ought to be dismissed with costs.
2. I agree.