JUDGMENT : CHAMIER, J. This was a suit by the respondents against the appellants and others for the rent of certain land for the years 1315 and 1316 Fasli. The respondents are mortgagees in possession of an occupancy holding, and their case is that the land to which this suit relates was part of that holding, and that the appellants and others were the sub-tenants of their mortgagors and held the land at an annual rent of Rs. 148-8-0. Paragraph 2 of the plaint says that under a compromise filed in the Civil Court and the decree passed-thereon, the respondents are entitled to collect rents from the sub-tenants from 1315 Fasli. The first court gave the respondents a decree for Rs. 137-4-0, and this decision was affirmed by the District Judge on appeal. In second appeal it is contended that the suit is not maintainable. It is pointed out that the District Judge has held that no agreement as to the amount of rent to be paid by the appellants has been proved, and the first court's decree was affirmed on the ground that the court was competent to determine the rent payable for the land. The learned District Judge refers to section 34 of the Tenancy Act. The section refers to suits brought against persons occupying land without the consent of the land-holder. The respondents have never alleged that the appellants were in occupation of the land during the years in suit without their consent. On the contrary, their allegation is that the appellants were tenants of the mortgagors and became their tenants when they took possession under the compromise. Section 34 therefore does not apply to the suit, nor does section 95 of the Tenancy Act apply to the suit, for the appellants were ejected at the end of 1316 Fasli, and it has been held in a series of cases, see Manni Tewari v. Rajkutnar Lal,[1904] 2 A.L.J.R. 1, and cases referred to therein, that in the case of agricultural tenants, if the landholder wishes to get rent for the period of tenancy, he must either come to an agreement with the tenant as to the rent to be paid or get the rent fixed by the court while the tenancy subsists. 2. The case to which I have referred was one under Act XII of 1881. 2. The case to which I have referred was one under Act XII of 1881. But the ruling seems to be applicable to section 95 of the present Tenancy Act; the opening words of which are, “at any time during the continuance of the tenancy.” On behalf of the respondents it is contended that there should be at least a further enquiry in order to ascertain whether, and, if so, from what date, the appellants occupied the land without the consent of the respondents. To accede to this suggestion would be to allow the respondents to make a fresh case against the appellants, and I cannot allow them to do this act at this stage. It seems a hard case, but the respondents, as it seems to me, should either have proved an agreement for the payment of rent or taken steps to have the rent fixed by the court before they ejected the appellants. I allow the appeal and dismiss the suit with costs throughout.