JUDGMENT

Misra, A J C - This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent brought by the plaintiff-appellants under the following circumstances:

2. A certain holding was in possession of the defendant No. 1 as a tenant of one Raja Amarpal Singh Taluqdar of Dalippur, who is defendant No. 2 in this case. The rent payable for that holding was a sum of Rs. 25 a year. In the year 1920 the taluqdar gave a perpetual lease of the plot in suit to the plaintiffs, the said plot being one of the plots of their lease-hold holding. The plaintiffs sued for arrears of rent and added a relief in their suit to the effect that the rent of the plot, which has now been leased to the defendant No. 1, should be determined, and this relief they joined along with their claim for arrears of rent under Section 32-B of the amended Oudh Rent Act.

3. The learned Assistant Collector threw out the suit on the ground that under Section 32-B the rent could not be determined. The matter was, however, taken in appeal to the learned District Judge of Rae Bareli, who did not go into that question but dismissed the appeal on the preliminary ground that the appeal should have been filed before the Commissioner on the revenue side and that it did not lie to his Court.

4. I am surprised to see that the learned District Judge, on the view of law which he took, dismissed the appeal. In my opinion the right course for him to take was to return the memorandum of appeal to the plaintiffs-appellants for presentation to the proper Court' vide Section 107, Sub-section (2) read with Order 7, Rule 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure. I am not however concerned with this order because I do not agree with the view taken by the learned District Judge in appeal. He held that because a suit for determination of rent was one which was brought under Section 108, Clause (3-A), the appeal could not lie to him Under Section 115 of the Oudh Rent Act since such a suit was not mentioned in that section as appealable to the District Judge. He therefore held that the appeal should have been lodged by the plaintiffs to the Court of the Commissioner on the revenue side. I do not agree with that view. In my opinion the suit of the plaintiffs was not principally for determination of rent, but it was really a suit for arrears, of rent under Section 108, Clause (2), and appeals in suits brought under the latter clause go to the District Judge under Section 115 of the Oudh Rent Act. The learned District Judge seems to think that the principal relief claimed in such a case is the determination of rent. It, however, appears to me that the supposition is not correct in view of Sub-Clause (3) of Section 32-B of the Oudh Rent Act. That clause says that a suit for determination of rent under Sub-section (1) or under Section 127 may be joined with a suit for arrears of rent under Clause (2) of Section 108. On a proper interpretation of this Sub-clause (3) of Section 32-B, it appears to me clear that the principal suit is the suit for arrears of rent with which the suit for determination of rent is to be joined. In Oudh when suits under Section 127 of the Oudh Rent Act are brought and the plaintiff claims a relief as to the arrears of rent he usually goes in appeal to the Court of the District Judge and then in second appeal to this Court. Any number of reported cases are to be found on this point. I mention only a few of them-Deputy Commissioner, Patabgarh v. Sheoambar (1898) 1 O.C. 28 and Rani Jaibans Kuar v. Girdhari (1898) 1 O.C. 40.

5. When a plaintiff brings a suit for arrears of rent and joins a relief with regard to the determination of rent, in my opinion the suit nevertheless remains a suit for arrears of rent brought under Section 108, Clause (2). The relief with regard to determination of rent is merely ancillary to his getting a decree and if the suit for arrears of rent is one in which an appeal would lie on the civil side I fail to see how the forum of appeal would be changed merely because