(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for rent brought by the plaintiffs, the respondents before us, against the defendant, who is the appellant. The plaintiffs are the holders of lands in a Government khas mehal in which the land in suit is included. Upon the judgment of the Court below: it appears that by an express contract between the parties the defendant held this land at an annual rental of Rs. 81-6-0, on condition that the landlord would be entitled to enhance the rent should it be found on measurement that the area occupied by the defendant was more than what was stated in the contract.
(2.) It appears further that a Record of Rights . was prepared in respect of this khas mehal under Chapter X of the Bengal, Tenancy Act, The Record of Rights was finally published in the year 1910, The area of the holding as therein entered is larger than the area stated in the contract but the amount of rent entered is the same as the rent Stated in the contract. There is no mention of the circumstances in which the rent was liable to enhancement. The landlord, the plaintiff, had himself measured the holding before the Record of Rights was published. The two measurements--that made by the landlord himself and that made by the Revenue Officer- -are practically identical. In a suit for rent instituted in the year 1908, the landlord claimed an increased rent upon the footing of the actual area of which the tenant was found to be in possession. The suit was compromised and the petition of compromise filed by the parties is on the record. Its terms are not very clear and regard being had to the view we take of this case it is not necessary for us to examine its meaning closely,
(3.) The real question that arises is, whether the rent entered in the Record of Rights was the rent settled under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and, if so, whether section 113 of the Act precludes the plaintiff from obtaining in the present suit a decree for rent at a higher rate than that entered in the Record of Rights.