1. Mr. Justice Newbould has held that the Variation which has been proved is so small that it does not rebut the presumption arising under Section 50 of the Bangui Tenancy Act. The cases referred to deal with those in which there has bean an unexplained variation. In the present case it has been proved that there has been variation of rent; and there is no suggestion or evidence in the case to show that such variation was due to increase of area or any other cause than that of enhancement of rent. This ground, therefore, fails.
2. The other ground taken is that the learned District Judge was wrong in relying upon the evidence afforded by the jama wasilbaki papers. It is not and cannot be disputed that those papers are relevant evidence in the ease. What has been contended is that the evidence which has been given in support of these documents is not sufficient to make them admissible for the purposes for which they have been used. The simple answer to this argument is that these documents were admitted without objection in the First Court, and, therefore, such an objection will not now lie.
3. We think that sufficient cause has been shown for this increase, and that the judgment and decree of Mr. Justice Newbould must be reversed and the decree of the District Judge restored with costs of the hearing in this Court and also of the hearing before Mr. Justice Newbould.