JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, dated the 19th August 1904. The suit out of which the appeal arises was one brought to recover khas possession of certain land after ejectment of the Defendants therefrom. Four persons were made Defendants in the suit, namely, Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The Defendents Nos. 1 and 2 are alleged to be old tenants of the holdings and the Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 purchasers of the holdings from the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The Court of first instance gave the Plaintiffs a decree. 3. The lower Appellate Court has set aside the decree of the Munsif and dismissed the suit. 4. The Plaintiffs appeal to us; and on their behalf it is urged, first, that the difficulties which have given rise to this suit may be met by striking the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 out of the list of Defendants; secondly, that the suit is not one for ejectment under the Bengal Tenancy Act, and therefore sec. 50 of that Act, upon the provisions of which the Subordinate Judge has relied in coming to his finding that the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are occupancy raiyats holding at fixed rates, does not apply, and thirdly, that as the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have sold their holdings and abandoned them and as they no longer pay rent for them, nor reside in the village, the Subordinate Judge should have held that the holdings have been abandoned by their former tenants. 5. As regards the first of these grounds of appeal, we need only say that we see no reason to accede to the prayer of the Plaintiffs-Appellants, and strike out the names of the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from the list of Defendants in the suit. 6. The second and third grounds, however, must prevail. 7. It is clear that this is not a suit for ejectment under the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Plaintiffs have not relied upon the provisions of sec. 25 of that Act. They are suing to eject the Defendants as trespassers, and the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act do not apply to a suit such as this. That being so, the Subordinate Judge should not have relied upon the provisions of sec. The Plaintiffs have not relied upon the provisions of sec. 25 of that Act. They are suing to eject the Defendants as trespassers, and the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act do not apply to a suit such as this. That being so, the Subordinate Judge should not have relied upon the provisions of sec. 50 in deciding the question as to the status of the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. It will be observed that, according to sec. 50, sub-sec. (2), it is only if it is proved in any suit or proceeding under the Bengal Tenancy Act that either a tenure holder or raiyat and his predecessors in interest have held at a rent or rate of rent which has not been changed during the 20 years immediately before the institution of the suit or proceeding, that it is to be presumed that they have held at that rent or rate of rent from the time of the Permanent Settlement. This not being a suit under the Bengal Tenancy Act, the presumption does not arise under that section; and the lower Appellate Court has only relied upon the presumption of the section as giving rise to the presumption in this case that the rent of the Defendants has not been enhanced since the time of the Permanent Settlement, and that they are raiyats, holding at fixed rates. 8. With reference to the third ground of appeal we would point out that the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have ceased to pay rent to the Plaintiffs. They are no longer on the land and have transferred it to the Defendants Nos. 3 and 4; and although the Subordinate Judge says it is not urged, much less proved, that they have abandoned their residence, as contemplated by sec. 87 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, it is alleged before us that they reside in a different village from that in which the jotes are situated. Furthermore, the only contesting Defendant is the Defendant No. 3; and therefore, if he alleges that the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have not abandoned their holdings, then he has no locus standi in this case. It is only upon the assumption that the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have abandoned their holdings that the Defendant No. 3 has any right to contest the suit. 9. 1 and 2 have not abandoned their holdings, then he has no locus standi in this case. It is only upon the assumption that the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have abandoned their holdings that the Defendant No. 3 has any right to contest the suit. 9. We accordingly set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and remand the case to that Court to be decided with reference to the above observations. The costs will abide the results.