JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiffs sued as occupancy tenants to recover possession of certain lands on the ground that they had been illegally ejected by their landlord. The suit was brought within two years from the alleged illegal ejectment and the special law of limitation relating to this which is provided for in Sch. III of the Bengal Tenancy Act was referred to in the plaint. The first Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the Plaintiffs had failed to prove that they had occupancy rights, and that the suit was barred inasmuch as it had been instituted beyond six months from the date of the ejectment, that being the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit brought by a non-occupancy raiyat. 2. The lower Appellate Court set aside this order and decreed the suit holding that it was not barred by the law of limitation. 3. This second appeal was heard by another Bench of this Court which re manded it to the lower Appellate Court for a finding, first, whether the Plaintiffs were occupancy tenants or non-occupancy tenants, and, secondly, what was the date on which they were dispossessed by the Defendant landlord. The lower Appellate Court has found that the Plaintiffs were non-occupancy tenants and that the period of the alleged ejectment was a little time within two years before the institution of the suit. It is now contended before us that, on these findings, the suit is barred for the reasons stated by the Munsif. The law of limitation which the learned pleader contends is applicable to this case is that set out in sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act, that is, six months from the date of the dispossession, without the consent of the Plaintiffs, of immoveable property otherwise than in due course of law and in this respect we may refer to sec. 89 of the Bengal Tenancy Act which provides that no tenant shall be ejected from his tenure or holding except in execution of a decree. That is practically enacting in analogous words the terms of sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act in respect of the relief open. The learned pleader for the Respondents, however, contends that sec. 89 of the Bengal Tenancy Act which provides that no tenant shall be ejected from his tenure or holding except in execution of a decree. That is practically enacting in analogous words the terms of sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act in respect of the relief open. The learned pleader for the Respondents, however, contends that sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act does not apply to the present case and that the term of limitation is six years under the Limitation Act, Art. 120, inasmuch as this is a case not otherwise specially provided for by that Act. It seems to us, however, that the facts of this case fall exactly within the terms of sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act. After giving full consideration to the opinion of the learned Judges in the case of Ramdhan Bhadra v. Ram Kumar Dey I. L. R. 17 Cal, 926 (1890), we cannot accept it as a correct view of the law applicable to this case, and the opinion, in this respect, is an obiter being unnecessary for the purposes of the case then under trial. In this view we hold that the suit of the Plaintiffs is barred by limitation. We accordingly set aside the order of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the first Court with costs in this Court and the lower Appellate Court. We allow one set of costs for the two hearings.