JUDGMENT : Banerji, J.:— In 1887 an occupancy tenant purported to make a usufructuary mortgage of his holding. There was some arrangement as to each party keeping down a proportionate part of the rent, the whole of the holding not being included in the so-called mortgage, The rent having fallen into arrears, the landlord sued for the rent and obtained a decree; the amount of the decree not having been paid, he took out ejectment proceedings and obtained an order for the ejectment of the occupancy tenant. The lower appellate Court finds that the tenancy was determined, and possession was given to the landlord. This was in the year 1894. The landlord, thereupon, made a new lease to the usufructuary mortgagees, who have remained in possession up to the present under the new lease and without recognising the mortgagors in any way. 2. In the year 1902 the present suit was instituted by the plaintiffs, asking for the redemption of the usufructuary mortgage, and attempting to treat the new interest created by the lease as being held for their benefit under the provisions of section 90 of the Trusts Act and section 64 of Act No. IV of 1882. In deciding this case regard must be had to the provisions of section 9 of Act No. XII of 1881 and section 20 of the Tenancy Act of 1901. The plaintiffs in the present suit in effect ask the Court to compel the present lessees to transfer their interests under the new lease to the plaintiffs, and to make themselves the tenants of the zamindar under that lease. Such a transfer would be quite contrary to the provisions of section 9 of Act No. XII of 1881. The landlord duly and legally determined the tenancy in the year 1894, and he has been made a party to this suit, He is entitled to retain his present lessees as his tenants. As against him the plaintiff's rights clearly came to an end when the old tenancy was determined. We do not think that having regard to the nature of the property, section 64 of the Transfer of Property Act or section 90 of the Trusts Act has any application and that the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain the present suit for redemption. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs including fees on the higher scale.