1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, dated the 8th June 1916, affirming the decision of the Mansif of Serampur, The plaintiff brought the suit to recover possession of a piece of agricultural laud and a tank, on the ground that the term under which the defendant held the property had expired. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit so far regards the tank. The question arises only with, reference to the agricultural land; and that limit on a consider anion as to whether the defendant has a right of occupancy in the land. Both the Courts below have found that the defendant has a right of occupancy. The only question we have got to consider is, whether the findings are sufficient to dispose of the case, it is quite clear when one reads the judgment of the Munsif and the judgment of the Subordinate Judge that the period of years for which the defendant and his father have been in possession and cultivating the land extends back far beyond the date when the lease was executed, that is, 1314. The rent, receipts which, were accepted by the first Court as genuine-rand that finding has not been displaced or doubted by the lower Appellate Court--commenced from the year 1300. On that evidence, the Court obviously meant to find that the defendant and his father had been in possession and cultivating this land for more than twelve years prior to the execution of the lease. That being so, the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act prohibit the plaintiff from contracting with his tenant that the tenant should give up the benefit of the right of occupancy, which the Statute expressly reserves to the tenant, and prevents the landlord from getting any relief on such a contract. The present appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.