Mohammad Ismail, J.
1. This and the connected appeals arise out of five separate suits that were brought by the plaintiffs for profits under Section 230, U.P. Tenancy Act (17 of 1939), against the defendant who is the lambardar. The suits were contested on a variety of grounds. The Courts below upon a consideration of the evidence have decreed the suits. The plaintiffs have now come to this Court in appeal.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellants has stressed two points. He contends that the Court below had erred in law in granting interest at the rate of only 6 1/4 per cent, per annum. He has urged that according to the correct reading of the relevant section, the plaintiffs are entitled to charge interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum. The suit in this case was brought with respect to arrears of years 1344 to 1346F. The suit was instituted on 9th February 1940, that is, a few days after the new Act had come into force. It is not disputed that Section 225 of Act 3 of 1926 allowed interest at the rate of 1 per cent, per mensem. The learned Civil Judge has relied upon Sections 229 and 296 of Act 17 of 1939 and has awarded interest at a reduced rate. In our opinion the appellants' contention is well founded. Section 296 of the Act refers to the procedure that has to be followed with respect to pending suits and decrees under execution. It does not affect the rights acquired before the new Act came into force. Section 229, Sub-clause (1) of the Act lays down as follows:
In the absence of the determination of the date by the settlement Officer, or of an express agreement among the co-sharers, profits shall be divisible on such dates as the Provincial Government may, by rules made under this Act, prescribe.
3. Sub-Clause (2) of the same section runs thus:
Revenue, rent or profits not paid on the day on which they fall due become on the following day arrears, and the lambardar shall be entitled to claim interest on such arrears at the rate of one anna in the rupee per annum simple interest.
4. It appears to us perfectly clear that the rate provided in Sub-clause (2) relates to the arrears which fell due after the commencement of the new Act. That being so, the trial Court was right in awarding interest at the rate of 12 percent, per annum to the plaintiffs on the arrears of rent that were found due to them.
5. The next point pressed by learned Counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiffs were entitled to get proportionate profits on the amount of arrears realised by the defendant lambardar during the pendency of the suit. The Courts below have discussed this matter at some length and have held that the plaintiffs were paid profits on the basis of recorded rent in the previous years and therefore they were not concerned with the arrears of rent realised by the lambardar in subsequent years, that is, during the pendency of the suit. This is a clear finding of fact and the appellants cannot go behind it. In our opinion, there is no force in this contention.
6. The result, therefore, is that we modify the decree of the Court below to this extent that we award interest on the arrears of rent found due to the plaintiffs at the rate of 1 per cent, per mensem. In other respects the appeal is dismissed. The appellants will get their proportionate costs. The respondent will bear his own costs of the appeal.