JUDGMENT : GRIFFIN, J. Under a partition held in 1315 Fasli certain plots were allotted to the plaintiffs. These plots were then in the occupation of the defendant as his khudkasht. The defendant continued in occupation until 1318 Fasli when he was ejected. The plaintiffs in the present suit seek to recover from the defendant the sum paid to the latter by certain persons holding from the defendant as his sub-tenants. In their plaint the plaintiffs alleged that after the partition they asked the defendant to vacate the land in suit; nevertheless the defendant continued to cultivate it without the consent of the plaintiffs. The courts below decreed the plaintiffs' suit finding that the defendant continued in occupation of the holding without consent of the plaintiffs. On appeal here it is contended that the provisions of section 34 of the Tenancy Act are not applicable to a case like the present and that the respondents could not after the ejectment sue for rent unless they could prove an agreement for payment of rent or a previous assessment of rent on the holding. We have been referred to several rulings of this Court:—Debt Sing v. Mohammed Ismatl Khan,[1898] I.L.R., 20 All 296, Mauni Tewari v. Raj Kumar Lal, [1904] 2 A.L.J.R. 1 In our opinion none of the rulings quoted before us have any application to the present case. In the case before us the defendant was in occupation of the land in suit without consent of the plaintiffs and the latter were clearly entitled under section 34 of the Tenancy Act to institute a suit to recover rent at such rate as the court may determine fair and equitable for the period the land had been in the occupation of the defendant. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.