JUDGMENT

Smith, J - These applications are connected, and can be disposed of by one judgment. They are both by one J.C. Bhattacharji, against whom decrees have been passed in the two suits in question in respect of the rent of a shop at Luck-now. The facts briefly are that about the middle of 1931 the applicant negotiated for the premises in question. He first discussed the matter with Darogha Qamar Husain, who was the plaintiff in the suit (No. 4328 of 1931) out of which the application No. 55 arises. There was some disagreement as to the amount of rent to be paid, and according to Mr. Bhattacharji he afterwards heard that one Ishtiaq Husain Khan, as he put it, "used to realize rent." Accordingly he arranged with him to pay Rs. 25 a month. Afterwards however Qamar Husain objected, and alleged himself to be the owner of the house, whereupon Mr. Bhattacharji admittedly gave Qamar Husain a typed acknowledgment, dated 14th June 1931 that he had taken the shop from him and would in future pay the rent to him. Ishtiaq Husain Khan, it should be mentioned, is a nephew of Qamar Husain. Despite the fact that on 14th June Mr. Bhattacharji had acknowledged Qamar Husain to be his landlord, he afterwards addressed to him a letter on 24th July 1931 saying that he proposed to deal in future with Ishtiaq Husain Khan who, he was convinced, was the real owner of the shop. Qamar Husain afterwards, on 15th September 1931, instituted a suit for the rent of the shop from 15th July 1931 to 14th September 1931 and got a decree.

2. In the suit (No. 5795 of 1931), out of which the application No. 54 arises, Ishtiaq Husain Khan sued for the rent of the same shop for the period 15th October to 14th December 1931-he claimed however only at the rate of Rs. 15 a month. That claim was admitted by the defendant and accordingly the suit was decreed. Both the suits, it should be mentioned, were decided by Mr. Tika Ram Misra, the Second Additional Judge of the Small Cause Court. I understand that Qamar Husain also holds a decree for the period 15th September 1931 to 29th January 1932 but that decree is not now before me. The decrees that I have to consider are those for the period 15th July to 14th September 1931 in favour of Qamar Husain, and for the period 15th October 1931, to 14th December 1931 in favour of Ishtiaq Husain Khan. It is urged for the applicant that he has had decrees passed against him in respect of the same shop in favour of two different persons, but unreasonable as this may be according to ordinary principles of common sense I do not see that the two judgments be-iore me can be objected to. In Qamar Husain's suit the learned lower Court rightly took the view that having accepted Qamar Husain as his landlord, the defendant was estopped from denying Qamar Husain's title, according to the principles Lald down in Section 116, Evidence Act. Qamar Husain's suit was therefore rightly decreed.

3. It is urged for the applicant that Ishtiaq Husain Khan ought to have been made a party, and an application was made at a very late stage in suit No. 4328 of 1931 asking that that be done. The learned lower Court however had apparently finished the ease save for the delivery of judgment by the time that application was made and the application was accordingly rejected. The object of the two applications that are now before me is to have both the suits sent back for determination of the question which of the two plaintiffs was really entitled to the rent of the shop. In this connexion reference was made to a ruling reported in Altaf-ul-Rahman v Agha Jan, (1913) 19 IC 473. As to the refusal of the lower Court to make Ishtiaq Husain Khan a party in Qamar Husain's suit reference was made to a ruling Gopi Nath v. Mumtaz Ali, AIR 1929 Oudh 148. The contention is that on the principles laid down in that ruling the lower Court's order refusing to make Ishtiaq Husain Khan a party in Qamar Husain's suit is revisable. On the general principles applicable to application