ORDER Henderson, J. - This rule has been issued in connection with an application for preemption under S. 33, 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 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 1 to 11 are estopped from applying for pre-emption. Under S. 33, sub-s. (3) the transferee is entitled to be reimbursed for anything paid as ft 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 cosharer 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 S. 35, sub. S. (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. 2. This section is modelled on S. 26F, Bengal Tenancy Act, as it stood before the amendment. In two cases, 35 C. W. N. 656 Dabiruddin v. Kristo Chandra ('32) 19 A. I. R. 1932 Cal. 139 : 136 I. C. 470 : 35 C. W. N. 856 and 37 C. W. N. 914 Gobinda Chandra v. Nagendra Kumar ('34) 21 A. I. R. 1934 Cal. 39 : 143 I. C. 108 : 37 C. W. N. 914 it was held that no estoppel arises from the acceptance of the transfer-fee. This confirms the view I have taken. 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. This confirms the view I have taken. 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.