1. The land in respect of which the rent is claimed was originally dry-land. For some time, until Fasli 1318 the defendant took water from one of the Kistna Canals and paid the Government Rs. 5 as water tax and Rs. 180 to the Zamindar as rent. In Fasli 1318, the Government agreed to localise the lands to which Government was bound to supply water free of assessment.
2. After this arrangement the water allowed by the Government became the Zamindar's. The defendant as usual has taken his usual quantity from that water and the Zamindar has asked that the water rate of Rs. 5 paid to the Government should be paid to him. Both the Lower Courts decreed the plaintiff's claim and the tenant has appealed.
3. Mr. T.M. Krishnaswami Aiyar in his able argument contended before us that unless the Government assigned their right to collect the water-tax, the Zamindar is not entitled to it. But seeing that the Government have retired from the field and left the Zamindar free to make his own arrangements with his tenants, there is nothing in this contention. The learned Vakil next argued that this additional payment for water is not rent. Whatever may have been the view under the old act, Section 3 Clause (11) of the Estates Land Act makes, it clear that a payment for water supplied or taken for the Zemindar is rent. The suggestion that the term rent in this clause means rent upon the whole holding of the ryot is plausible. but we do not think there is any substance in it. Sections 27 and 28 to which our attention was drawn contemplate the continuance of the status quo ante in a succeeding fasli; but where under an express or implied contract, there is a promise to pay for the water taken, we fail to see how the payment due th erefor is not rent.
4. The last contention was that as the sanction of the Collector was not obtained for the increased rent, the suit was misconceived. We do not think that an extra payment due for additional advantage is necessarily an enhancement. Where new circumstances have come into existence which require new adjustments, there is no question of enhancement. The principle of The Manager to the Lessees of the Sivaganga Zamindari v. Chidambaram Chetti I.L.R. 38 M. 524 is applicable to this case. We do not think that Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of Section 30 have any application. They contemplate the continuance of the old state of affairs and yet a claim is made for increased rent without offering any fresh advantage. In such cases, there would be enhancement.
5. In the view, we have taken the tenant has been given new facilities for which he is bound to pay. The tax on his holding is the same. What he paid the Government for the water, he is asked to pay the landlord. Under these circumstances, there is no question of enhancement.
6. The decision of the courts below is right. The second appeals are dismissed with costs.
7. Vakil's fee is Rs. 10 in each of the second appeals.