Asutosh Chowdhury, J.
1. The only point raised by the appellants in this case is as to whether Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act is limited to questions between landlords and tenants.
2. It is argued that the Revenue Court and the first Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to go into the question of disputed title between the landlords and the occupants of the holding, which the landlords wanted to be assessed and which is within the ambit of their estate. So far as Section 102 of the Act is concerned, Clause (j) clearly provides an entry to be made in respect of land if claimed to be held rent-free, whether or not the 'occupant' is entitled to hold the land without payment of rent. Section 105 (2) gives a right to the Zemindar to apply within the time thereby limited for settlement of rent. In that very section reference is made under Section 102 (j) including the case of the occupants of any land. Section 105A (a) and (b) refer to questions whether the land is or is not liable to pay rent. Sub-clause (c) deals with the issue as to whether a person who is the occupant is in the relation of a tenant. I think it is clear that the sections above referred to contemplate a case of the character now before the Court and that the Court had clear jurisdiction to go into the question raised. This is also to a certain extent supported by the decision in Upendra Nath Ghose v. Jamini Mohan Pal 21 Ind. Cas. 37 : 18 C.W.N. 268 I hold that the only point which has been raised in these appeals before ma fails, and, therefore, they are dismissed with costs so far as the appearing respondents are concerned.