JUDGMENT Geidt, J. - Defendant No. 1 formerly held an occupancy jote in Mouzah Kandirpur situated within Pergunnah Meharkul. In 1893 he sold the holding to the Defendant No. 2 and severed his connection with the land. Since then Defendant No. 2 has been in possession of and has paid rent for the holding. The Plaintiff who is the proprietor of Pergunnah Meharkul brought the present suit in the year 1898 to eject the Defendant No. 2, on the ground that her purchase without the consent and permission of the Plaintiff landlord was made in contravention of the local usage, and that she having therefore acquired no title to the land was nothing but a trespasser. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that occupancy holdings in Pergunnah Meharkul are transferable by local usage without the landlord's consent. The sole question that was raised in this appeal by the Plaintiff is whether the facts found by the lower Appellate Court are sufficient to establish a usage that holdings are transferable without the landlord's consent. The facts found by the Sub-Judge are that not only in Mouzah Kandirpur but also in the whole Pergunnah raiyats transfer their holdings without reference to the landlord. The landlord, however, although cognizant of the transfer does not recognize the transferee as a tenant till the latter pays him a nazar (fee) but all the same he receives rent from the transferee granting a receipt in which the original holder's name is entered as tenant, and in which the transferee's name is entered as a person through whom the payment is made. When the transferee does not personally pay the rent but sends it by an agent, the name of this agent is also entered as the person by whose hand the payment is made. Till the transferee pays the nazar the original holder remains recorded in the landlord's books as the tenant and is sued for any rent which may fall into arrears. 2. There is thus a recognition by the landlord of the transfer as a transaction between the transferer and transferee, but it is not a recognition of the transfer as affecting his own rights, for he still looks to the original holder as the person responsible for the rent until the transferee pays him the accustomed nazar. 2. There is thus a recognition by the landlord of the transfer as a transaction between the transferer and transferee, but it is not a recognition of the transfer as affecting his own rights, for he still looks to the original holder as the person responsible for the rent until the transferee pays him the accustomed nazar. It appears to us on these facts that the Sub-Judge might well have found that a usage had been established, which in the words of sec. 183 of the Bengal Tenancy Act "is not inconsistent with and is not expressly or by necessary implication modified or abolished by the provisions" of the Act, viz., a usage under which a raiyat in Kandirpur is entitled to sell his holdings and transfer his occupancy right without reference to the landlord, provided only that the purchaser pays to the landlord a customary fee. The finding that amongst themselves tenants do transfer their rights of occupancy without the landlord's consent does not in itself establish an usage in this respect so as to affect the right of the landlord to accept or refuse to consent to such transfer. On the contrary, it has been found that the payment of nazar is requisite to validate such transactions which would imply that the landlord's consent is still necessary. In the present case this condition has admittedly not been fulfilled, and the Defendant cannot therefore successfully resist the present suit. The order of the lower Court must, therefore, be reversed. The appeal succeeds and the Plaintiff's suit is decreed with costs in all the Courts.