JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - This Rule has been issued in connection with an application for pre-emption under sec. 33 of the Sylhet Tenancy Act. The Petitioners are the purchasers, and the question for consideration is whether the landlord Opposite Parties are estopped from applying for pre-emption. Opposite Parties Nos. 12 and 13 transferred the holding as though it were a raiyati at fixed rates. The Petitioners subsequently ascertained that it was only an occupancy holding. They accordingly paid the ad valorem transfer fee amicably. They contend that after accepting this fee, the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 11 are estopped from applying for pre-emption. 2. Under sec. 33, sub-sec. (3) the transferee is entitled to be re-imbursed for anything paid as a transfer-fee. This cannot be explained away by a suggestion that it is really meant to meet the case of an application for pre-emption by some only of a body of co-sharer landlords. The transferee is also entitled to a refund of any sum paid as rent for a period subsequent to the date of transfer. Similarly, under sec. 35, sub-sec. (4), the institution of proceedings by a landlord to recover the balance of a legitimate transfer-fee will not take away his right of pre-emption. It is thus abundantly clear from the provisions of the statute itself that the acceptance of the transfer fee does not create an estoppel. An application for pre-emption is not really a denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant, but a tacit recognition of it. 3. This section is modelled on sec. 26F of the Bengal Tenancy Act as it stood before the amendment. In two cases [Sheikh Debiruddin v. Kristo Chandra Mukhopadhyaya 35 C. W. N. 656 (1930) and Gobinda Chandra Choudhury v. Nagendra Kumar Chowdhury 37 C. W. N. 914 (1933)] it was held that no estoppel arises from the acceptance of the transfer-fee. This confirms the view I have taken. 4. It is thus clear that in order to create an estoppel, the transferee must prove something more than the acceptance of the transfer-fee, for example, that the landlord accepted selami on condition that he would not exercise his right or something of that kind. The Rule is discharged with costs,-hearing-fee being assessed at one gold mohur.