( 1 ) THIS Rule was obtained against an order of the learned trial Judge, rejecting the petitioner's contention that the Bengal Money-Lenders Act would have no application to the transactions before the Court, namely, two usufructuary mortgage deeds, dated February 16 and February 17, 1945. ( 2 ) THE matter arose out of an application under Section 38 of the above Act in respect of the said two transactions. The area concerned was Purulia, which was transferred to West Bengal with effect from November 1, 1956, but the Bengal Money-Lenders Act was extended to that area with effect from July 1, 1959. ( 3 ) THE contention of the petitioner was that, as the above transactions were of the year 1945 and were governed by the Bihar law, which was repealed in respect of the said area July 1, 1959 when the Bengal Act (Bengal Money-Lenders Act) came into force there, would not be affected by the latter Act, so far as acquired or vested rights were concerned, and it was the petitioner's contention that, in view of Section 8 of the Bihar Money-Lenders Act, or, to be more accurate, of the Bihar Money-Lenders (Regulation of Transactions) Act, the petitioner had acquired a vested right to resist any appropriation of the usufruct received by him from the disputed properties against the principal amount of the loan. ( 4 ) IT appears, however, that, under the express terms of the said Section, the same would apply only to transactions before the commencement of the said Act, which, at the latest, would be 1939. The instant transactions therefore, being of the year 1945, would not, on the express terms of the said Section, attract the same. Upon this ground alone, the petitioner's contention must fail. ( 5 ) IN the above view, we discharge this Rule and affirm the decision of the learned Munsif. There will be no order for costs in this Rule. Rule discharged.