Charles Arnold White, C.J.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against so much of the decvee in ejectment obtained by him as directs the payment of compensation to certain of the defendants. In cases to which the Transfer of Property Act applies the rights of the tenant are defined by Section 108 (h) of that enactment and the extent of the right is the same in cases not governed by the Act. See Ismail Khan Mahomed v. Jaigun Bibi (1900) I.L.R. 27 Calc. 570. I do not think Section 51 of the Act applies in terms as between landlord and tenant. The observations in Ismai Kani Rowthan v. Nazarali Sahib (1904) I.L.R. 27 Mad. 211 at p. 221, may be said to indicate a contrary view but these observations are very guarded, and they are moreover obiter. Even if the section applied, I do not see how, in this case, it could be said the defendants believed in good faith they were "absolutely entitled" to the property in question. There have been at least two resumptions of the property by the Zamindar. There is no trustworthy evidence that these resumptions were resisted by the defendants. There have been enhancements of rent and there is nothing to show those enhancements were not accep