JUDGMENT Edgley, J. - The Plaintiffs are the Appellants in this case, and the appeal arises with reference to a suit brought by the Plaintiffs for a declaration of their title and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit land. Their case was to the effect that two persons named Nabu Sheikh and Kalu Sheikh held under them as under-raiyats, and that their heirs sold the under-raiyati holdings respectively on the 5th of February, 1937, and the 3rd of December, 1937. The sales were without the consent of the Plainitffs who maintain that the under-raiyati holdings had been abandoned, and that they were consequently entitled to re-enter. The case for the Defendants was to the effect that there had been no abandonment, that the kobalas dated the 5th of February, 1937, and the 3rd of December, 1937, represented benami transactions, and that in fact the original under-raiyats were still in possession of their holdings. 2. The first Court found that the kobalas were genuine, and that the Defendants had not discharged the onus which lay on them to establish the alleged benami character of these transactions. The learned Munsif held that in fact the under-raiyati holdings had been transferred and decreed the Plaintiffs' suit. 3. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the decision of the learned Munsif. He maintained the finding with regard to the kobalas dated the 5th of February, 1937, and the 3rd of December, 1937, but he held that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to re enter, having regard to the fact that the requisite steps to evict the Defendants were not taken until after the Bengal Tenancy Amentment Act of 1938 came into operation. 4. It is argued on behalf of the Respondent that a landlord who seeks to re-enter a holding after abandonment must have recourse to the procedure laid down in sec. 87 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and it is contended in the present case that the Plaintiff was too late in adopting the requisite procedure to which he had recourse only after the under-raiyati holdings had been made transferable owing to the passage of the new Act which came into operation on the 18th of August, 1938. In support of this contention reference was made to a decision of this Court in the case of Panchu Gazi v. Ejahar Ali Sardar 38 C. W. N. 445 (1934). In support of this contention reference was made to a decision of this Court in the case of Panchu Gazi v. Ejahar Ali Sardar 38 C. W. N. 445 (1934). That case, however, is distinguishable on the facts, and I do not think that it has any application in the present circumstances. There can be no doubt that as regards the present case, the Plaintiffs' right to re-enter accrued in respect of the two raiyati holdings respectively on the 5th of February, 1937, and the 3rd of December, 1937. Having regard to the provisions of sec. 8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act (Act I of 1899), the subsequent passage of the new Act could not detract or abrogate the right which accured to the Plaintiffs in connection with this matter before the 18th of August, 1938. In my opinion, the date on which they actually took steps in connection with the procedure outlined in sec. 87 of the Bengal Tenancy Act is immaterial unless any question of limitation arises, which in this case is not contended. 5. In my view the Plaintiffs are entitled to re-enter. The decision of the lower Appellate Court must be set aside and that of the Court of first instance restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs throughout. Leave to appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is refused.