W. Comer Petheram, C.J.
1. We think that no appeal lies in this case, and that the question is really concluded by the authority of the case of Hurrosundari Debi v. Bhojohari Das Manji 13 C. 86.
2. The suit is a rent suit which was brought by the landlord against his tenant to recover a sum of rent. During the time that such suits were governed by Bengal Act VIII of 1869, no second appeal lay to this Court by reason of there being a question involved in the suit as to the amount of the rent. After the suit was commenced, and before the decree, Act VIII of 1885 was passed. That act, amongst other things, repeals Bengal Act VIII of 1869, and provides that in cases of this kind, where this peculiar kind of dispute arises, an appeal shall lie. It may be that at first sight it would look as if that was intended to relate to all suits that were then pending; but when one comes to look at Section 6 of the General Clauses Act of 1868, it will be seen that it provides that the repeal of any Statute, Act, or Regulation shall not affect any proceedings commenced before the repealing Act shall have come into operation. The word 'proceedings' there, as applied to a suit means, I think, the suit as an entirety, that is to say, down to the final decree, and, inasmuch as the other ground of appeal can only be let in by the repeal of Section 102 of the older Act, this appeal is, we think, prohibited by the effect of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which says that the proceedings shall not be affected by the repeal of the Statute. As I said before, I think that the matter is concluded by the decision of Hunosundari Debi v. Bhojohari Das Manji 13 C. 86, and that it is not necessary for us to say anything more than that with that decision we entirely agree. Under the circumstances we dismiss the appeal with costs on the ground that no appeal lies.