1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by he plaintiff for enhancement of the defendant's rent. The plaintiff is the present owner of a separated 10-anna share of a certain estate. This 10-anna share was in the year 1885 carved out of a separated 12-annas share of the same estate, the latter share and the 4-annas share having been formed into separate estates in the year 1341 as the result of a partition by metes and bounds. Subject to the estate, there was a tenure and it may be conceded that when the separated 12-annas share of the estate wag divided into two parts, the separated 12-annas share of the tenure subordinate to it was also divided into two tenures, so that five-sixths of the whole 12-annas came to be held as a separate tenure under the 10-annas proprietor and the remaining one-sixth as a separate tenure under the 2 annas proprietor. In 1885, the- 10-annas proprietor brought a suit against the holders of the five-sixths share of the tenure for rent. He obtained a decree and had their share sold and purchased it himself. The defendant is a ryot holding as such certain laud which she formerly held under the owners of the two separated shares of the tenure. The plaintiff seeks to enhance her rent without joining in the suit the owner of the one-sixth share of the tenure. Both the lower Courts have held that such a suit is not permissible under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The lower Appellate Court says: 'There is, however, no authority to hold that even if those shares of the taluq be considered two separate taluqs, the plaintiff as owner of the five-sixths share by virtue of her auction purchase is entitled to enhance the rental of five-sixths share of each of the ryoti holdings under the entire taluq. This proposition of the plaintiff does not at all seem to me equitable. Where the lands of the taluq have not been divided representing the aforesaid shares of it, one and all the ryoti holdings within it shall be taken as held under the entire body of landlords owning the whole taluq. As the entire body of landlords have not joined in bringing this suit, the plaintiff, being only the owner of it to the extent of five-sixths share, cannot maintain this suit for enhancement.' We think that the view of the law on which the lower Appellate Court has acted is supported by the cases to which that Court has referred, namely, the case of Hurry Churn Bose v. Rajah Runjit Singh 1 C.W.N. 521 : 25 C.917 and the case of Baidya Nath De Sarkar v. Sheikh Jhin 2 C.W.N. 44 : 25 C. 917, as we conceive, the law applied in those cases is now well-settled and ought to be well known. The question depends in the first place on the meaning of the word 'holding' as used in Section 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, which again depends on the definition of the word in Clause (9) of Section 3. What has been held is that the word 'holding' as used in the Tenancy Act, with reference to a raiyat, means an entire parcel or parcels of land and that a landlord who is only entitled to a fractional share of the landlord's interest in the land is not entitled under Section 30 of the Act to sue alone for enhancement of rent. Reference was made to Section 188 of the Act and it was argued that the owners of ' the two separated shares of the tenure are not joint landlords within the meaning of that section. Obviously, the division of the 12-annas share of the tenure for the purpose of the division of the same share of the proprietary interest, unaccompanied by a partition of the land by metes and bounds, does not necessarily involve a division of the raiyati holdings under the tenure and if the raiyats have agreed to pay or have paid their rent separately to the owners of the separated shares of the tenure in proportion to those shares it does not follow that they have agreed to the division of their holdings for any other purpose. For the present purpose, as we conceive, the owners of the separated shares of- the tenure are still joint landlords. But we need not insist on that, because, as we have shown, the question depends not only on section, 188, but also on the terms of Section 30 and the plaintiff is not the landlord of a holding within the meaning of that section. The suit, having been brought under the Tenancy Act, is clearly subject to its provisions whether the defendants' holding came into existence before the passing of the Tenancy Act or not. It is really unnecessary to advert to what has been said in the Courts below.
2. The result is that the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.