JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal by the first Defendant in an action in ejectment. The subject-matter of the litigation is a parcel of land which, according to the Plaintiff, was held by the second Defendant as an under-raiyat. The Plaintiff was originally an occupancy raiyat. In 1886, he purchased the superior tenure. In 1901, the second Defendant transferred his interest in the land to the first Defendant. The present action was commenced in 1909 to eject the first Defendant as a trespasser. The Courts below have concurrently decreed the suit. On the present appeal, that decree has been assailed on three grounds. It has been contended, in the first place, that the effect of the purchase, by the Plaintiff, of the superior tenure in 1886, was to elevate the status of the second Defendant. This contention is obviously unfounded. The effect of the purchase must be determined with reference to the terms of sec. 22 (2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act as framed in 1885. That sub-section provides that when the immediate landlord of an occupancy holding is a proprietor or a permanent tenure-holder, and the entire interest of the landlord and the raiyat becomes united in the same person by transfer, succession, or otherwise, the occupancy right shall cease to exist; but nothing in the sub-section shall prejudicially affect the rights of any third person. It has not been proved that the superior interest purchased by the Plaintiff was a permanent tenure. But we shall assume for our present purpose that it was a permanent tenure. What then was the effect of the purchase ? The result was to vest the holding in the purchaser, subject to the limitation that the occupancy right ceased to exist. But it has been argued for-the Appellant that the effect in substance was that the holding itself ceased to exist. This contention is opposed to the decision of this Court in the case, Jawadul Huq v. Ram Das Saha I. L. R. 24 Cal. 143 (1896), affirmed in Ram Mohan v. Kachu ILR 32 Cal. 386 1905. That case turned upon the construction of sub-sec. 2 of sec. 22 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and is an authority for the proposition that where a proprietor purchases an occupancy holding, the holding does not cease to exist, but merely the occupancy right, which is one of the incidents of the holding, disappears. 386 1905. That case turned upon the construction of sub-sec. 2 of sec. 22 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and is an authority for the proposition that where a proprietor purchases an occupancy holding, the holding does not cease to exist, but merely the occupancy right, which is one of the incidents of the holding, disappears. A comparison of the phraseology of sub-sec. (2), with that of sub-sec. (1), shows that in sub-sec. (1) a distinction is made between " occupancy holding " and " occupancy right ", and we are not prepared to accede to the contention of the Appellant that when the occupancy right ceases to exist, the holding also vanishes. In our opinion, the true effect of the purchase by the Plaintiff was to keep the holding in suspense. In this view, the Defendant continued to be an under-raiyat. 2. It has been contended, in the second place, that the suit is barred by limitation. This argument has clearly no force, because if the Defendant is a trespasser, he is liable to be ejected by the Plaintiff within the period of 12 years prescribed by Art. 142 of the Indian. Limitation Act. 3. It has been contended, in the third place, that the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, in so far as they apply to the ejectment of under-raiyats, have not been followed. This argument involves the obvious fallacy that the first Defendant is an under-raiyat. But the case for the Plaintiff is that the interest of the second Defendant was non-transferable, and that the first Defendant has not acquired any interest in the holding by his purchase. It has been suggested, however, by the Defendant that as there is no provision in the Bengal Tenancy Act, which bars the transfer of the interest of an under-raiyat, that interest must be deemed transferable. We are clearly of opinion that the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act do not support this view. They show that the Legislature contemplated that an under-raiyat may, under certain circumstances, acquire an occupancy right. If he does acquire such a right, that right may be transferable by custom or local usage. But there is no authority for the proposition that the interest of an under-raiyat is ipso facto transferable. The result is that this appeal is dismissed with costs.