JUDGMENT Nasim Ali, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 17 per year from 1333 to 1336 B. S. The defence of the tenant is that he is an under-raiyat and the Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover more than what is permitted by old sec. 48 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Courts below have decreed Plaintiffs' claim at the rate of Rs. 17 from Magh 1335 B. S., but have refused Plaintiffs' claim for rent at the rate for the previous period in view of the provisions of old sec. 48 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. 2. It appears that the tenancy of the Defendant was created in 1333 B. S., i.e., before the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Amendment Act of 1928. By sec. 48 of the Act of 1885, the landlord of the under-raiyat's holding was not entitled to recover rent exceeding the rent which he himself pays by more than a certain percentage. This section was repealed by the amending Act of 1928. By the new sec. 48 the tenant is bound to pay such rent as he agreed to pay at the time of his admission to the occupation of the land. In this case the Courts below have decreed the Plaintiffs' claim at the rate at which the tenants agreed to pay at the time when they were admitted to the occupation of the land in 1333 B. S., for the period after the new sec. 48 came into operation. The old section did not condemn the contract as bad, but simply prevented the landlord from recovering by suit at the contractual rate. By the repeal of that section that bar has been removed [see the case of Digambar Paul Ghosh v. Tafazuddi Ijardar 37 C.W.N. 1033: S.C. 68 C.L.J. 76 (1933)]. The decision of the Courts below is, therefore, right. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Henderson, J. I agree.