JUDGMENT Edgley, J. - In the suit out of which these Rules arise the Plaintiff sued the Defendants for compensation the use and occupation of certain lands. In No. 129 they claimed at the rate of Rs. 13-3-9 per year, in Suit No. 130, at the rate of Rs. 12-6-6 per year and in Suit No. 131, at the rate of Rs. 3-13-11 per year for the years 1345 to 1350 B. S. The suits were decreed by the learned Small Causes Court Judge. It is argued by the learned Advocate for the Petitioners that the judgment of the learned Munsif overlooks the fact that sec. 22 (2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act was amended in 1928 in such a way as to make it possible for a co-sharer landlord to acquire the holding of an occupancy raiyat together with the occupancy rights therein. It is admitted in this case that the Defendants acquired the tenants' interests in the land in suit before 1928. This land is situated in Eastern Bengal and the law with regard to this matter, when the Petitioners acquired their interests, was :-- If the occupancy right in land is transferred to a person jointly interested in the land as proprietor or permanent tenure-holder such person shall have no right to hold the land as a proprietor or permanent tenure-holder, as the case may be, and shall pay to his co-sharers a fair and equitable sum for the use and occupation of the same. 2. It seems therefore to he clear that, having regard to the law as it stood at the time when the Petitioners made their purchase before 1928, they are bound to pay to the Opposite Parties a fair and equitable sum for the use and occupation of the land. 3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners argues, however, that by reason of the amendment of the law in 1928, his clients have been placed in a position in which they have been able to acquire occupancy rights in respect of the holdings which they purchased before 1928. 3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners argues, however, that by reason of the amendment of the law in 1928, his clients have been placed in a position in which they have been able to acquire occupancy rights in respect of the holdings which they purchased before 1928. The new section on which the, learned Advocate relies leads as follows :-- Nothing in this section shall prevent the acquisition by transfer, succession or in any other way whatsoever, of the holding of on occupancy raiyat or share or portion thereof, together with the occupancy rights therein by a person who is or becomes jointly interested in the lands as a proprietor or a permanent tenure-holder. 4. As I read the section it would have permitted the Petitioners to acquire rights in the holding which they had purchased provided the purchase had been effected after 1928, but it does not have the effect of conferring upon them any advantages in connection with the acquisition of occupancy lights in respect of a purchase which they had made before 1928. In other words, the sub-section merely relates to the acquisition of a holding after 1928, but it would not confer any rights ill respect of a holding which had already been acquired. In this view of the case I am of opinion that the decision of the learned Small Causes Court Judge was correct. The Rules will therefore, be discharged with costs--hearing-fee, one gold mohur.