This is a rule issued at the instance of Defendant No. 1 calling on the Plaintiff, the Opposite Party, to show cause why the decree in his favour in a suit under sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act should not be set aside on the ground that be had not been dispossessed within the meaning of that section. The point raised by the rule is whether the ouster of a tenant is an ouster of the landlord for which the landlord can sue under sec. 9. The rule was granted upon that ground, and we think that we must not travel beyond that. As to this point, it has been before the Court in a number of cases. In favour of the present Petitioner is the case of Sonaton Shome v. Sheikh Helim decided in 1902. On the other side are the cases of Bindubashini Chaudhurani v. Jahnavi decided in 1897, Bindubashini Choudhurani v. Janhobi Chaudhurani decided in 1892, and Janoki Nath Ray v. Dinamani Chaudhurani, Shyama Churn v. Mahomed Ali and Nabin Chunder Das v. Koylas Chunder Das. We asked for a reference to any decision in which the case of Sonatun Shome v. Sheikh Helim has been followed; but the learned pleader for the Petitioner has been unable to refer us to any such case. He asks that, having regard to the conflict of ruling, between that case on the one hand and the cases to which we have alluded on the other, a reference should be made to a Full Bench. But having regard to the number of ruling which are against the ruling in Sonatun Shome's case, we do not think that we should be justified in following that course. Nor do we thick that the importance of this case demands it. We think that the Court should not interfere in this matter, and that this rule should be discharged with costs—hearing fee, 2 gold mohurs.
Rule discharged.