1. The point which has been taken before us is this, that the Judge was wrong in holding that Section 27 of Act VIII of 1869 did not apply to the present suit. In so holding, he is supported by a decision referred to by the Munsif reported as Brojo Mohun De Sircar v. Sheikh Dengu 7 C.L.R. 141.
2. We are invited, as was the Munsif, to consider some decisions under the Bengal Tenancy Act. Those decisions are not relevant and I would follow the reported decision and hold that the Judge was right.
3. Moreover, it has been pointed out in the present case that there is a finding that the evidence shows that the plaintiffs and the other tenants have been in occupation of their respective lands without payment of rents for a considerable time, as they had to excavate a khal to drain off water from the fields at their own expense and trouble. And then further, there is a ground of appeal which is inconsistent with the rest and which the learned Pleader does not press, that the Courts below ought to have held that as no rent was payable for the lands in suit, from which the plaintiffs were dispossessed, no tenancy in the eye of law can be said to have been created.
4. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
5. This judgment will govern the other two appeals (Second Appeals Nos. 1298 and 1299 of 1912).
6. I agree. On the appellant's own showing the plaintiffs were not dispossessed of the land by 'the person entitled to receive rent for the same' within the meaning of Section 27, Act VIII (B.C.) of 1869.