JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - The only question we have to decide upon this reference is, whether the case of Jawadul Hug v. Ram Das Saha ILR 24 Cal. 143 (1996) was rightly decided. The question submitted refers to two other cases, but, if we hold that the case of Jawadul Huq v. Ram Das Saha ILR 24 Cal. 143 (1996) was rightly decided, the others follow. In my opinion it was. The point, however, is not free from some difficulty, and the reasons given by the learned Judges who have made this reference against the soundness of that decision are entitled to every respect. But it seems to me that the reasons urged by the Judges who decided that case ought to prevail. Virtually that case was decided by six Judges as the five Judges who sat in that Court affirmed the view taken by Mr. Justice Beverley. It is a decision which has not been challenged for 8 or 9 years, though it is, perhaps, a little difficult to suppose that a similar case has not occurred meantime. I am satisfied with the reasons given by the learned Judges in that case, and I do not think 1 can usefully add anything to those reasons, which, to my mind, are sound. The first question must be answered in the negative, and the second qu the case in Jawadul Huq v. Ram Das Saha ILR 24 Cal. 143 (1896) in the affirmative. The result is that the suit must be dismissed with costs in all the Courts. Ghosh, J. I entirely concur with my Lord. I do not think that any sufficient ground has been shown why we should differ from the decision that was arrived at in the case of Jawadul Huq v. Ram Das Saha ILR 24 Cal. 143 (1896). The Bengal Tenancy Act contemplates two classes of raiyats, occupancy raiyats, and non-occupancy raiyats. Non-occupancy raiyats may, no doubt, by twelve years' occupation, acquire a right of occupancy, but if he has not acquired such a right, or does not possess such a right, he is only a non-occupancy raiyat. Sec. 22 of the Bengal Tenancy Act speaks of an occupancy right; and in the circumstances mentioned in cl. (2) it says, such occupancy right shall cease to exist. But it does not say that the holding itself shall cease to exist. Sec. 22 of the Bengal Tenancy Act speaks of an occupancy right; and in the circumstances mentioned in cl. (2) it says, such occupancy right shall cease to exist. But it does not say that the holding itself shall cease to exist. It has, however, been said that the same words "shall cease to exist" occur in both cls. (1) and (2) of the said sec. 22 and if the tenant's right is to be taken to come to an end in one case, it must also be taken to have come to an end in the other case as well. To my mind, there is an obvious distinction between the two cases contemplated by sec. 22. In the first-mentioned case, I mean that in el. (1), the interest of the raiyat and the landlord becomes united in one and the same person and the necessary result is that the tenant's right is merged in the higher right of the landlord, because the latter could not hold the land as a raiyat to himself. But the like result does not follow in the other case, for the co-sharer landlord having acquired the rights of a raiyat, could hold the land as a raiyat, if not to himself, certainly to the other co-sharer landlord. I am of opinion, therefore, that when the Bengal Tenancy Act does contemplate a class of raiyats different from raiyats with right of occupancy, namely, non-occupancy raiyats, the result of a purchase by a co sharer landlord of the occupancy holding of a tenant, as it is in the present case, will not be the termination of the tenancy right altogether, but only of his occupancy right in the holding. Rampini, J. 2. I regret I am unable to agree in the judgment of my Lord the Chief Justice and of my brother Mr. Justice Ghose. I do not think it necessary to set forth my views at any length because they are expressed in the order of the referring Judges of whom I was one. I adhere to my views and I would answer the first question propounded for our decision in the affirmative and the second in the negative. Harington, J. 3. I agree in the judgment delivered by my Lord. I adhere to my views and I would answer the first question propounded for our decision in the affirmative and the second in the negative. Harington, J. 3. I agree in the judgment delivered by my Lord. In this case the purchaser of the tenant's interest was not the landlord but one individual out of a number of persons who jointly constituted the landlords, so that the greater estate, that is, that of the joint landlords and the lesser estate, that is, the interest of the tenant which is purchased by one individual out of many do not coincide and meet in the same person. There cannot therefore be any merger. I do not think that in sec. 22 cl. (2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the legislature has expressed an intention that the tenancy should cease to exist under the circumstances of this case. I think the legislature only intended that the occupancy right which is an incident of the tenancy under Chap. V of the Tenancy Act should cease to exist. If it was intended that the tenancy should come to an end, I think the Act would have said so and would not have been limited in terms of the cesser of the occupancy right only. Brett, J. I agree with my Lord the Chief Justice in the answer which he proposes to give to this reference. I accept the reasons given by the learned Judges in the case of Jawadul Huq v. Ram Das Saha ILR 24 Cal. 143 (1896) in support of the view which we take and I have nothing to add to the reasons which they have given for their opinion as expressed in that judgment.