1. These two appeals arise out of proceedings under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In the Record of Rights prepared under that Act the lands were entered as kabil, lagan. The landlord made applications for settlement of fair rent under Section 105 of the Act. The applications were opposed by the tenants, among other grounds, on the ground of limitation. The question of limitation was decided in favour of the landlord.
2. The Assistant Settlement Officer dismissed the application on the ground that there was already an existing rent of Rs. 2-4-0 per bigha in each case. There were appeals to the Special Judge resulting in orders remanding the cases to the Assistant Settlement Officer for disposal on the merits. On remand the Assistant Settlement Officer decided that a fair rental would be Rs. 5-4-0 per bigha. Against that decision the tenants appealed. The Special Judge finally disposed of the matter in appeal by settling rent at Rs. 8-8-0 an acre. The tenants now appeal to this Court.
3. The respondents, landlords, take a preliminary objection that no appeal lies inasmuch as under the provisions of Section 109A of the Bengal Tenancy Act no appeal lies from a decision settling rent. The appellants contend that the decision having resulted in an enhancement of rent it was not a decision settling rent. It is, however, clear from the terms of Sub-section 4 of Section 105 that the expression settling rent' includes enhancement. The appellants then contend that in the course of settling the rent the Special Judge decided the question whether the tenants were holding at fixed rates. It is unnecessary for us to determine whether the portion of the judgment is appealable or not because the decision depended entirely on facts.
4. It is not now suggested that there was a mistake in law in coming to the decision upon the question of status. The result is that the appeals are dismissed.
5. There is an application in revision. The first ground on which we are asked to interfere in revision is that the question of limitation was wrongly decided. This is not a ground upon which this Court can interfere in revision.
6. The only ground which can be seriously urged is the ground that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to grant any relief in favour of the landlord. As we have said, the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer after remand was that the rent should be Rs. 5-4-0 per bigha. This rental, the learned Special Judge on appeal by the tenants, altered to Rs. 8-8-0 an acre.
7. There was a cross-appeal by the landlords but this cross-appeal was withdrawn. The appellant contends that the alteration of the rental in appeal is in favour of the landlords. It is clear that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to grant the landlords any relief inasmuch as the landlords' cross-appeal had been withdrawn and no prayer for relief in favour of the landlords was before the Special Judge.
8. In the circumstances, we set aside the judgment and decree of the Special Judge and restore those of the Assistant Settlement Officer. Each party will bear its own costs throughout.