JUDGMENT Edgley, J. - This Rule relates to an application filed by the landlord Petitioner for the payment to him of the landlord's fees due in respect of the transfer of certain holdings, which took place on the 18th April, 1934, and 23rd April, 1934. The Petitioner claims landlord's fees amounting in all to Rs. 54 and also compensation of like amount. The application was contested by the transferee on the ground that the holdings which she had purchased were rent-free holdings and that this being the case, she was not liable to pay the landlord's fees and the compensation as claimed. The matter was considered by the learned Munsif of Vishnupur in his order dated the 17th January, 1938. He found that the land which had been transferred under the sales which took place on the 18th April, 1934, and the 23rd April, 1934, constituted settled raiyati holdings which were liable to be assessed with rent. He held, however, that no landlord's fee was payable to the Petitioner in respect of these transfers because no provision had been made in sec. 26D of the Bengal Tenancy Act for the payment of the landlord's fees in cases in which settled raiyati holdings had not actually been assessed with rent. He therefore rejected the landlord's application. A further point was raised by the transferee before the learned Munsif to the effect that the landlord's application under sec. 26J of the Bengal Tenancy Act was barred by limitation. But this point was decided in favour of the landlord. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that the interpretation, which the learned Munsif has placed upon sec. 26D (b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, is unduly narrow. It has, however, been contended by the learned Advocate for the Opposite Party that the interpretation which has been placed on the section by the Court below is right and that the only reasonable meaning to be attached to sec. 26D (b) of the Act is that the rent must be payable at the time when the actual transfer takes place. Now sec. 26D (b) of the Act is that the rent must be payable at the time when the actual transfer takes place. Now sec. 26D (b) of the Act which is the section which applies in the case of a transfer such as that with which we are now concerned reads as follows: The landlord's transfer fee shall amount in the case of the sale of a holding or a portion or share of a holding, in respect of which a money rent is payable to 20 per cent of the consideration money as set forth in the instrument of transfer, or to five times the annual rent of the holding or of a portion or share transferred whichever is greater. 2. The main point for consideration therefore in connection with the interpretation of this sub-section is whether or not it can be said that a money rent is payable in respect of a transferred holding even though such money rent has not actually been paid at any time before the date when the actual transfer was made. According to the entries in the record-of-rights the presumptive value of which has not been rebutted, it is clear that these holdings are liable to assessment. It is true that such an assessment has never taken place, but it is nevertheless clear that once proper steps are taken to have the requisite assessment made, a money rent will immediately become payable in respect of the lands which had been transferred. To my mind to hold that the expression "payable" merely relates to rents payable at the present time would be to restrict unduly the natural meaning of the section. If rent is payable at all, it may be payable either at the present time or in the future; and in my view, it is clear that as a money rent may be assessed on the transferred land at some future date such rent is payable within the meaning of sec. 26D (b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It therefore follows that the landlord is entitled to apply for the landlord's fees payable in respect of these transfers under sec. 26J read with sec. 26D (b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. 3. 26D (b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It therefore follows that the landlord is entitled to apply for the landlord's fees payable in respect of these transfers under sec. 26J read with sec. 26D (b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. 3. It is, however, contended by the learned Advocate for the Opposite Party that the landlord's application is time barred in any event and that this being the case, he cannot now recover the landlord's fees and compensation for which he has prayed. He argues that the transfers took place considerably more than three years before the date of the application which was made on 24th September, 1937 and in support of this contention that the landlord's application is time-barred he relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Saktisaran Sinha v. Radha Raman Mandal 38 C.W.N. 50 (1933) in which it was held that the provisions of Art. 181 of the Indian Limitation Act applies to an application under sec. 26J of the Bengal Tenancy Act. I entirely agree with the view taken by Mr. Justice Costello and Mr. Justice Mullick in the case cited above. What that case decided amounts to this, namely, that the period of limitation for tiling an application under sec. 26J of the Bengal Tenancy Act will run for three years from the date on which the right to apply accrues. The question, therefore, which requires consideration in this case is when did the landlord's right to file this application under sec. 26J of the Act actually accrue. It is argued by the learned Advocate for the Opposite Party that this right accrued on the dates when the transfers took place. In support of this argument he relies upon the provision contained in sec. 26C (1 and 2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act to the effect that a transfer shall be made by registered instrument and that a deed of conveyance shall not be registered until the landlord's transfer fee has been paid. On the other hand it must be remembered that the mere payment of the landlord's fees to the registering officer and the performance of the other duties imposed upon the transferee by sec. On the other hand it must be remembered that the mere payment of the landlord's fees to the registering officer and the performance of the other duties imposed upon the transferee by sec. 26C (2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act do not in themselves constitute a notice to the landlord to the effect that a transfer has taken place and it would be impossible for the landlord to take the steps contemplated by law for the recovery of any balance of fees which might be due to him, unless he had been duly informed that a transfer had taken place. Sec. 26C (3) of the Act makes provision for the procedure to be followed in order to ensure that the landlord receives proper and formal notices of transfers which entitle him either to exercise his rights of pre-emption or to collect the landlord's fees which he may consider to be due to him. In my view, it is only when the steps contemplated by sec. 26C (?) of the Act have been duly taken or at any rate when it is clear that the landlord has been informed that the transfer has taken place that it can be said that his right to file an application under sec. 26J of the Act has accrued. In the case with which we are now dealing there are findings to the effect that no notices were ever served upon the landlord. There is, however, a finding to the effect that he obtained the knowledge of the transfers on the 12th August, 1937. His application was made on the 24th September, 1937, and this being the case, it was in my opinion duly filed within the prescribed period. 4. Having regard to the view expressed above with reference to the construction of sec. 26D (6) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, in my opinion the learned Munsif has exercised his jurisdiction illegally and this is a case in which this Court should exercise its powers in revision under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Rule is therefore made absolute with costs to the Petitioner--hearing fee being assessed at two gold mohurs --subject to a sum of Rs. 4 being deducted from the transfer fees claimed by the landlord as this sum of Rs. 4 has already been paid by the transferee under sec. 26H of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Rule is therefore made absolute with costs to the Petitioner--hearing fee being assessed at two gold mohurs --subject to a sum of Rs. 4 being deducted from the transfer fees claimed by the landlord as this sum of Rs. 4 has already been paid by the transferee under sec. 26H of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The result is that the landlord will be entitled to receive landlord's fees amounting to Rs. 50 from the Opposite Party and also compensation of Rs. 54 and the costs of this Rule.