Jackson, A J C—The appellant in this case has been held to be a sub-tenant of the respondents, who are malik makbuza holders, and the latter have been given a decree for ejectment against him.

2. He claims to be an occupancy tenant and he bases that claim upon the. allegation that he held the land as tenant for more than 12 years before 1st January 1884, the date on which the Central Provinces Tenancy Act, 9 of 1883, came into force. It has been held in Sheoram v. Raghoba,1892 6 CPLR 101 and Teisingh v. Lalji,1912 8 NLR 39 that under Act 9 of 1883 (as amended with retrospective effect by Acts 16 and 17 of 1889) no person could become an occupancy tenant of a malik makbuza from and after 1st January 1884, but that the status of a person who was already the occupancy tenant of a malik makbuza before that date remained unaffected. The appellant's case is that by his possession prior to 1st January 1884 he acquired a vested right which could not be taken away by subsequent legislation; and, therefore, that the lower appellate Court was wrong in holding: that he was a sub-tenant, and not am occupancy tenant, because his case falls-under the definition of ''sub-tenant'' in Section