Judgement Appeal (No. 68 of 1934) from a decree of the High Court (April 27, 1933) reversing a decree of the First Additional Subordinate Judge at Patna (June 20, 1930). The first question which arose in this appeal was whether the first respondent, Musammat Ramratan Kuer, had proved that she had occupancy rights in 641.15 acres = 1005 bighas odd of raiyati land situated in the district of Patna, Bihar. She was sued by the appellant on the footing that she had taken a transfer of a non-transferable occupancy holding by deed dated September 28, 1916, and that he was entitled to re-enter. The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. The Subordinate Judge made a decree ejecting the first respondent. Upon appeal to the High Court the learned judges (Wort and Fazl Ali JJ.) were of opinion that since the date of the deed the appellant or his predecessors had recognized the right of the transferee and could not now impugn the transfer. While the appellants appeal to the Judicial Committee was pending the Bihar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1934, was passed, which by s. 10 inserted certain sections into the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, in its application to Bihar and Orissa, s. 26 (n) of which provided that " Every person claiming an interest as landlord in any holding....shall be deemed to have given his consent to every transfer of such holding....made before January 1, 1923....." 1935. Oct. 28. De Gruyther K.C. and Parikh for the appellant. The trial Court and Wort J. found that neither Ram Kishun Singh nor Ganpat Narayan Singh was a benamidar of the first respondent. The deed of September 28, 1916, was a transfer of occupancy rights and not what it purported to be, and by executing it the raiyats abandoned their holdings. If there was a sale by Ram Kishun Singh and Ganpat Narayan Singh to the first respondent that would amount to an abandonment of their holdings Dayamayi v. Ananda Mohan Roy Chowdhury. (( 1914) I. L. R. 42 C. 172.) A conveyance by the occupancy tenant without the consent of his landlord is bad. The question of transferability of occupancy tenure is not a statutory right but rests on custom in Bengal Redferns Bengal Tenancy Act, 120, " Occupancy rights transferable by custom.” In the absence of custom they are non-transferable Chundrabati Koeri and Another v. Harrington. The question of transferability of occupancy tenure is not a statutory right but rests on custom in Bengal Redferns Bengal Tenancy Act, 120, " Occupancy rights transferable by custom.” In the absence of custom they are non-transferable Chundrabati Koeri and Another v. Harrington. (( 1891) L. R. 18 I. A. 27.) But the Bihar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1934, by s. 10, inserts new sections, 26A to 26 (p), in s. 26 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885. By s.26 (N) the landlords consent shall be deemed to have been given to the transfer of an occupancy holding made before January 1, 1923. The question is whether the rights of the parties are now to be determined by the law that existed at the time the plaint was filed, that is, to what date is the Act of 1934 retrospective ? [Reference was made to the Code of Civil Procedure, Order xli., r. 33.] [LORD THANKERTON. If the new Act declares that this transaction, being dated in 1916, shall be valid despite the fact that consent is not given by the landlord, would not this Court be bound by that ? The duty of a Court is to administer the law of the land at the date when the Court is administering it.] [Reference was made to Quitter v. Mapleson. (( 1882) 9 Q. B. D. 672.)] . The respondents did not appear. Nov. 12. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by SIR GEORGE RANKIN. This appeal has been heard ex parte, there being no appearance on behalf of any respondent. Their Lordships are much indebted to Mr. De Gruyther for the care and candour with which he has explained the considerations arising upon the appeal. The suit was brought on June 30, 1927, by the Official Receiver of the High Court at Calcutta, who represents the landlords interest in a village called Majhauli. The first defendant, Musammat Ramratan Kuer, was sued on the footing that she had taken a transfer of a non-transferable occupancy holding in this village by deed dated September 28, 1916. The suit was brought on June 30, 1927, by the Official Receiver of the High Court at Calcutta, who represents the landlords interest in a village called Majhauli. The first defendant, Musammat Ramratan Kuer, was sued on the footing that she had taken a transfer of a non-transferable occupancy holding in this village by deed dated September 28, 1916. The case made against her was that the transfer of the holding attracted certain principles of law laid down in the well known case of Dayamayi v. Ananda Mohan Roy Chowdhury (( 1914) I.L. R. 42 C. 172.), and that the landlord was entitled to re-enter upon the holding as upon an abandonment by the tenant. The deed of September 28, 1916, purported to be a relinquishment by one Ram Kishun and the heirs of one Ganpat, of the tenancy right including the right of occupancy to defendant No. I, who was the widow of Bansidhari Singh. The purport of the deed was that Ram Kishun and Ganpat had become entitled to the tenancy right as benamidars for defendant No. 1 and not otherwise. The plaintiffs case, on the other hand, was that defendant No. i had, prior to the deed, no interest in the tenancy, and that the deed accordingly was in reality a transfer of a non-transferable occupancy holding. The Subordinate Judge accepted the plaintiffs case and made a decree ejecting defendant No. 1. On appeal to the High Court at Patna, however, the learned judges were of opinion that since the date of the deed in question the plaintiff, or his predecessors, had recognized the right of the transferee and could not now impugn the transfer. This question depends upon the effect to be given in law to certain rent receipts. The case which the appellant desired to submit to the Board in this appeal is that these rent receipts were given by the patwari, and cannot be imputed to him a£ a recognition of the transfer even if it be held that they bound his ijaradar. The decree of the Subordinate Judge was dated January 20, 1930. On appeal, the High Court dismissed the suit on April 27, 1933. Pending the appeal to His Majesty in Council the Legislature of Bihar and Orissa passed an Act called the Bihar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1934. The decree of the Subordinate Judge was dated January 20, 1930. On appeal, the High Court dismissed the suit on April 27, 1933. Pending the appeal to His Majesty in Council the Legislature of Bihar and Orissa passed an Act called the Bihar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1934. The assent of the Governor-General to this Act was dated November 24, 1934, and by s. 1, sub-s. 2, the Act was expressed to come into force on such date as the Local Government might by notification appoint. The date fixed by the Local Government for the commencement of the operation of the Act was June 10, 1935. The first question to which their Lordships have to address themselves is whether this Act does not take away from the appellant the right which he is proposing to enforce by bringing this appeal to His Majesty in Council. By s. 10 of the Act certain sections are inserted into the Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885 so far as regards its application td Bihar and Orissa. By new sections numbered 26 (a) to 26 (m) provision is made whereby an occupancy-raiyat is given power to transfer his occupancy-holding. This new right is made subject to the payment of a transfer fee to the landlord, the fee being paid either to the landlord direct, or to the collector for the landlords benefit. In addition to these provisions, which are to take effect in the future, there are two sections, 26 (n) and 26 (o), expressed and intended to have retrospective action. Sect. 26 (n) directly governs the present case, and is as follows " Every person claiming an interest as landlord in any holding or portion thereof shall be deemed to have given his consent to every transfer of such holding or portion by sale, exchange, gift or will made before the first day of January, 1923, and, in the case of the transfer of a portion of a holding, to have accepted the distribution of the rent of the holding as stated in the instrument of transfer, or if there is no such instrument, as settled between the transferor and the transferee." Sect. 26 (o) provides that in the case of a transfer made on or after January 1, 1923, but before the date of the commencement of the Act, the transferee may pay to the landlord, or deposit with the collector, a transfer fee as therein particularized, and that upon his complying with this condition the consent of every person claiming an interest as landlord in the holding or portion transferred shall be deemed to have been given to the transfer. The Act contains no saving clause modifying the effect of ss. 26 (N) and 26 (o). In these circumstances, it appears to their Lordships that unless some saving can be implied as regards occupancy-holdings which, at the date of the commencement of the Act, are in question in a pending suit, s. 26 (N) must be applied to the present case, and the plaintiffs appeal must fail in limine. Their Lordships are of opinion that no such saving can be implied. Sect. 26 (N) is not a provision to the effect that no action shall lie in certain circumstances, nor has it any reference directly to litigation. Its provision is that every person claiming an interest as a landlord shall be deemed to have given his consent to every transfer made before January 1, 1923. This is retrospective the question is not whether general language shall be taken only in a prospective sense. The object of this section can only be to quiet, titles which are more than ten years old, and to ensure that if during those ten years the transferee has not been ejected he shall have the right to remain on the land. Within this class the Legislature has not thought fit to discriminate against tenants whose right is under challenge in a suit, a course which it may well have regarded as invidious or unnecessary. As substantive rights of landlords and their accrued causes of action were to be abrogated, respect for pending suits over old transfers cannot be assumed. Again, if s. 26 (o) be looked at, it will be seen that in the case of a transfer made after January 1, 1923, but before June 10, 1935, the provision is that the transferee may pay or deposit the landlords transfer fee and thus perfect his title. Again, if s. 26 (o) be looked at, it will be seen that in the case of a transfer made after January 1, 1923, but before June 10, 1935, the provision is that the transferee may pay or deposit the landlords transfer fee and thus perfect his title. There is no suggestion that a transferee shall be incompetent to make the payment, or that the collector shall refuse to receive the money in any case in which the transfer is impugned in a pending suit. If the saving to be implied in favour of pending suits is to attach to all suits brought prior to the coming into force of the Act, then the interval between the passing of the Act in November, 1934, and the coming into force of the Act in June, 1935, gave opportunity to any landlord to bring an ejectment suit and defeat the rights conferred by ss. 26 (n) and 26 (o). In their Lordships opinion it is reasonably plain that no such saving can be implied. On this view the present appeal fails and should be dismissed. As the respondents have not appeared there will be no order as to costs. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.