(1.) Whether the second crop alone was raised with the help of the tenant s improvement (the well excavated by him at his own expense) or both the first and the second crops were due to the help of the irrigation from that well, I think that the increase of production" in the holding by the quantity of grain raised in the second crop is a consequence of the improvement." If so, the tenant is, under Section 13, Clause (3), not liable to pay "a higher rate of rent," that is a rate higher than he would have had to pay if the increase of production had not taken place. The rate of rent is, in my opinion, higher for the Fasli in question whether the increase which makes it higher is brought about by the condition that the rent for the Fasli shall be larger than that first provided for in the muchilika in case two crops are raised instead of one, or whether such increase is brought about by the condition that a separate or independent amount shall be paid as additional rent for the second crop besides the rent charged for the first crop.
(2.) The lower Courts have, therefore, rightly deleted the condition in the patta requiring the tenant to pay an additional rent if a second crop is raised and I would dismiss the second appeal with costs. Tyabji, J.
(3.) The parties are at issue as to the terms in which the clause in the muchilika dealing with the rent payable by the tenants to the appellant should be framed. The appellant contends that the clause should be so framed as to provide that the rent should be calculated on the basis of the number of crops raised, so that if the second crop is raised on the lands, additional rent should be payable in respect of the second crop. The tenants contend that the rent so far payable has been in respect of the land as such and has no reference to the number of crops, that a term to the effect claimed by the landlord would cause an enhancement of the rent, and should, therefore, be disallowed.