1. It appears to us that when a landlord claims to revert to a nanjai rate of rent on his repair of a tank, which had fallen out of repair, such repair is only a restitution of the previous state of things, and is not such an improvement as imparts additional value to the land; nor is the claim to revert to the rate in use when the tank was in good repair a claim to raise the rent which under Section 11 of the Rent Recovery Act would require the sanction of the Collector.
2. We think that, if the tank were kept in repair, the landlord would be entitled to revert to the rates in force before the tank fell out of repair.
3. But the change should not be made too suddenly, because the raiyat should be allowed two or three years to reap his punjai cotton and other crops, and to prepare the land for nanjai cultivation.
4. This tank was repaired in Fasli 1289, and this suit relates to the patta for 1290. The raiyat was not allowed a reasonable time to make the changes required. Therefore as to the patta for 1290, we hold that there should be no-change in the rates of remission hitherto in force.
5. Thus, while not entirely concurring in the judgment, we confirm the decree of the District Court and dismiss this second appeal.
6. We make no order for the costs of this second appeal.