1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned Officiating Additional Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, dated the 10th February 1915, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Hathazari. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover Wias possession of the land in dispute. The plaintiffs purchased a revenue paying estate which was sold for arrears of revenue under the provisions of Act XI of 1859. The question in this case is 'has the contesting defendant a protect-ed interest within the meaning of the proviso to Section 37 of the Act'? The facts found are these : First of all, it has been found that the contesting defendant is a settled raiyat of the village within the meaning of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Secondly, it has been found that he holds the land in suit which is in the same village as the village of which he is a settled raiyat under the terms of a permanent lease at a fixed rate of rent. Whatever may be the law as regards other classes of raiyats, it is quite clear on the terms of Section 21 of the Bengal Tenancy Act that, contract or no contract, every raiyat who is a settled raiyat of a village and obtains a raiyati interest in other lands in that village acquires a right of occupancy in those other lands; and, if that is so, the present defendant seems to me clearly to have a right of occupancy in the land in dispute. If he has a right of occupancy, he comes clearly within the proviso to Section 37 of Act XI of 1859, and has an interest which has not been annulled by the sale for arrears of revenue. In that view, I agree in the decision arrived at by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court. The present appeal, there fore, fails and must be dismissed with costs.
2. I agree.