JUDGMENT Jenkins, C.J. - This is a suit to recover possession, and the Plaintiffs' title is this. His predecessor settled the holding with certain individuals, and the rent falling into arrear, the Plaintiff brought a suit for arrears of rent, obtained a decree, and in execution of that rent decree, himself became the purchaser of the raiyati holding. The Defendant No. 1'S position is that he claims as an under-raiyat, and there can be no doubt that there was an attempt to excute a permanent leasehold interest in his favour by the occupancy raiyats. This document was registered, but in accordance with decisions which are binding on us we must hold that this registration was of no effect, having regard to the provisions of sub-sec. (2), sec. 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The lease therefore was of no effect. But Defendant No. 1 contends that even though that may be so, still he was in actual occupation of the land and paid rent for it to the raiyats. This, he says, created an under-raiyati interest in his favour, and inasmuch as the landlord purchaser omitted to take the requisite steps under sec. 167 of the Act to annul incumbrances and also omitted to give notice in the terms of sec. 49, the suit must fail as the right to possession has not been established. This view has been rejected by the lower Appellate Court from whose decree the present Appeal has been preferred. In my opinion the lower Appellate Court was right, and I say that because the position is covered by the decision in Peary Mohun Mookerjee v. Badul Chandra Bagdi I.L. R. 28 Cal. 205(1900). where it was held in circumstances closely resembling the present that the landlord purchaser was entitled to treat the under-raiyati holding as not being valid against him. It may be that at one time it was an arguable point whether this did not prejudicially affect the interest of a third party within the meaning of the concluding words of sub-sec. (1), of sec. 22 of the Act, but any argument on that point is now rendered of no effect by reason of this decision in Peary Mohun Mookerjee's case I.L. R. 28 Cal. 205(1900). The result is that in my opinion the decree of the lower Appellate Court is correct and must be confirmed with costs. Ray, J. I agree.