JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal in a suit brought to eject the Defendants from some homestead land, which they hold, otherwise than as part of their holding. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit. The Plaintiffs appeal to us. 2. The Courts below have unanimously found (1) that the Defendants are raiyatt, (2) that there Is no local custom or usage prohibiting the acquisition of occupancy rights in homestead land held otherwise than as part of a holding and (3) that that being so, the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act relating to the acquisition of occupancy rights apply to the land in suit. 3. It has been contended by the Appellants that the lower Courts are wrong in dismissing the suit for ejectment; and in particular, it has been urged that the Defendants are not raiyats, because they do not hold culturable land in the village in which their homestead land is situated. 4. We are however, of opinion (1) that the findings at which the lower Appellate Court has arrived are findings of fact with which we cannot interfere in second appeal; and (2) that the finding of the District Judge that the Defendants are raiyats is correct. We may point out that it is not required by sec. 182 of the Act that a tenant in occupation of homestead land should be a raiyat in the village in which the homestead land is situated; and in this case the Defendants hold culturable lands in the immediate vicinity of their homestead but situated in a different village. That does not prevent them from being raiyats nor, we may add, is it necessary for the Defendants to be tenants under the same landlord, as the landlord of the homestead land. 5. Then, with regard to the non-existence of any custom prohibiting a tenant of homestead land held apart from his holding as a raiyat from acquiring a right of occupancy, that is a finding of fact and no ground has been shown to us by the learned pleader for the Appellants on which we could disturb that finding. 6. In the circumstances the District Judge has, we think, rightly held that the Defendants, who have been in occupation for more than twelve years, have acquired occupancy rights. The appeal is dismissed with costs.