Judgment 1. THIS appeal is by defendant No. 1 and it arises out of a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits. 2. ACCORDING to the courts below, defendant No. 1 has only jalkar right in the disputed property, that right being confined only to the watery portion thereof. This was also the plaintiffs' case and, there being no document, showing that the said right was to enure for a fixed period or to have any other character except the character of a monthly tenancy, the courts below have concurred in holding that the defendant's right has been duly determined by an appropriate notice to quit, expiring with the end of Chaitra 1361 bs. Upon that view, they have, given the plaintiffs a decree in the instant suit. Against this concurrent decree of the two courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed by defendant No. 1. The other defendants against whom also the above decree was passed, have not appealed from the same. As, from the records, particularly the settlement papers,-the c. s. records and the r. s. records,-it is clear that defendant No. 1 had no right in the disputed land except a jalkar right, as set out hereinbefore, the decision of the two courts below in favour of the plaintiffs must be affirmed. 3. OBVIOUSLY the defendant No. 1 cannot claim any protection under the bengal Tenancy Act as jalkar right is excluded therefrom under section 193. 4. MR. Dutt, in arguing this appeal, sought to raise the question of protection under section 6 (2) proviso of the west Bengal Estates Acquisition Act in favour of his client. That protection, however, would not be available to the appellant in the instant case, as his lease, if any, was determined with the expiry of 1361 B. S. and the vesting of the plaintiffs' interest in the State under the above Act, if any, could not have taken place before the 10th of April, 1956, and, accordingly, the appellant defendant's lease, if any, would not be a lease, subsisting immediately preceding the date of vesting. This new argument in support of the appeal must, accordingly, fail. In the above view, we would dismiss this appeal but there will be no order for costs.