JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - This appeal is directed against an order rejecting an application made under sec. 35 (2) of the Sylhet Tenancy Act. The Additional District Judge on appeal held firstly that the appeal was incompetent and secondly that it had no merits in it. The competency of the appeal depends upon whether the case comes within the terms of sec. 147. Under sub-sec. (5) any order made under that section shall have the effect of and be subject to the like appeal as a decree. 2. The application was resisted by the Respondents on the ground that they are holding at fixed rates. The Appellant must have had a shrewd idea of what the defence would be because he actually asked for a declaration that the Respondents merely had a right of occupancy. This in itself brought the application within the terms of sec. 147 (1). But even if it did not, the petition of objection filed by the Respondents was itself an application of that nature. I am, therefore, satisfied that the appeals both in the lower Court and in this Court are competent. 3. On the merits the Appellant's case was so desperate that Mr. Das could only suggest that the presumption raised in favour of the Respondents under sec. 23 (2) has been rebutted by the kabuliyat Exht. 4. As that document is by its very terms a confirmatory lease, it is quite idle to suggest that it shows the origin of the tenancy. The appeal is dismissed with costs-hearing-fee, one gold mohur.