JUDGMENT Mukherjea, J. - This appeal is on behalf of the Plaintiff and it arises out of a suit commenced by him to recover possession of lands described in the schedule to the plaint on establishment of his title to the same. The lands in suit admittedly appertain to a residuary estate which was sold for arrears of revenue on the 18th of January, 1935. The purchaser was one Brojendra who figures as a pro forma Defendant in this suit. The sale was confirmed on the 19th March, 1935, and on the 23rd Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 1557 of 1940; April following, the purchaser took possesion through the Deputy Commissioner under sec. 85 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. On the 2nd April, 1938, Brajendra sold his interest to the present Plaintiff and sometime after that, the present suit was commenced by the Plaintiff for recovery of possession of the lands in suit on evicting the Defendants who opposed the attempt of the Plaintiff to get possession of the same. The substantial point for consideration in the case is as to whether in respect of a portion of the disputed property which the Defendants Nos. 8 and 9 hold as raiyats they can claim protection from eviction under the proviso to sec. 71 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. The trial Court answered this question in favour of the Plaintiff and decreed the suit. On appeal the judgment has been reversed and the Plaintiff has come up on second appeal to this Court. 2. Now, sec. 71 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation lays down that a property sold under sec. 70 shall be sold free from all incumbrances previously created thereon by any other person than the purchaser. There are three provisos attached to the section and the second one provides that nothing in the section shall entitle purchaser to evict any tenant having a right of occupancy under the rent law for the time being in force or to enhance the rent of any such tenant otherwise than in the manner prescribed by that law. 3. The contention of the Defendants Nos. 8 and 9 is that they have acquired occupancy right in the lands held by them under sec. 25 (2) of the Sylhet Tenancy Act and consequently they are protected from eviction under the proviso mentioned above. 3. The contention of the Defendants Nos. 8 and 9 is that they have acquired occupancy right in the lands held by them under sec. 25 (2) of the Sylhet Tenancy Act and consequently they are protected from eviction under the proviso mentioned above. It may be stated here that the Sylhet Tenancy Act came into force only on the 1st March, 1937, and it was not in existence at the time when the revenue sale was held or the sale was confirmed. Prior to the introduction of Sylhet Tenancy Act the rights of agricultural tenants in the District of Sylhet were governed by Bengal Act XVIII of 1869 and under sec. 6 of that Act it was necessary that a raiyat should be in continuous possession of a particular parcel of land for 12 years in order to enable him to acquire occupancy rights in the same. This condition admittedly was not fulfilled by the Defendants Nos. 8 and 9 with regard to the lands in suit at the time of the sale and this had not been fufilled even when the suit was instituted. The Defendants however invoked the protection of the Sylhet Tenancy Act which came into operation prior to the institution of the suit by the Plaintiff and the controversy practically centres round the point as to whether they are entitled to take advantage of this new Act. We are unable to agree with Mr. Bhagirath Chandra Das that it is not open to the Defendants to claim to have acquired occupancy right in the land in suit under the provisions of sec. 25 (2) of the Sylhet Tenancy Act. The rights of the litigants are prima facie governed by the law which is in force at the time when the suit is instituted. There is no question here of giving retrospective operation to any statute. The proviso to sec. 71 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation as quoted above speaks of the rent law for the time being in force and this obviously means the law that is in force at the time when the purchaser either seeks to evict any tenant or attempts to enhance his rent. It is true that it was open to the predecessor of the Plaintiff to institute a suit for eviction against Defendants Nos. It is true that it was open to the predecessor of the Plaintiff to institute a suit for eviction against Defendants Nos. 8 and 9 just after the revenue sale was held; but if he or his predecessor slept over his rights and in the meantime the Defendants acquired new rights either by lapse of time under the old law, or under the provisions of any new law that is introduced since then, it is not conceivable as to how he is precluded from putting forward his new rights as a bar to the Plaintiff's suit for ejectment. In support of his contention Mr. Das relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shyamsundar Das v. L. Ivans I. L. R. 60 Cal. 1287 (1933). That decision, in our opinion, is of no assistance to the Plaintiff Appellant. The particular point which arises for consideration in this case was not considered in that case at all. 4. Mr. Das argued in the last resort that at any rate the Defendants Nos. 8 and 9 could not be said to have held the land as a raiyat after the revenue-paying estate was sold for arrears of revenue and if that is the position they could not have acquired occupancy rights under sec. 25 (2) of the Sylhet Tenancy Act. We do not think there is much substance in this contention. The Defendants Nos. 8 and 9 were admittedly holding the land as raiyats from before the revenue sale and so long as the revenue sale purchaser does not choose to turn them out as trespassers it cannot be said that they ceased to occupy the land as raiyats. The result therefore is that the contentions raised by Mr. Das fail and this appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.