1. (S.A. No. 2377 of 1921) This is an appeal by the landlord from a decision of the Special Judge of Tipperah, dated the 8th September 1921 Two points have been raised on his behalf. First, that on a proper construction of the kabuliyat in some of the cases in which the learned Judge has held that the tenancies are tenures he should have held that they were' raiyati holdings. The learned Judge being of opinion that the kabuliyat did not render any help in determining the question whether the tenancies were tenures of raiyati holding, proceeded to consider the evidence of actual user of the lands In some cases he came to the conclusion that the tenants held the lands in khas cultivation and hence the tenancies were raiyati holdings and in some other cases he found that the lands were in possession of sub-tenants and so he held that those tenancies were tenures. There is nothing in the kabuliyats in this case in which the tenancies have been held to be tenures to show that the lease was for any particular purpose, either for cultivation or for farming out the lands. In our judgment the learned Special Judge was quite right in the procedure he adopted in looking to the actual user of the land to find out the nature of the tenant
2. The second point raised is that even if it be held that the tenancies are tenures the appellant landlord should have been granted enhancement under Section 7 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. On this point the learned Judge has observed that there are not sufficient materials for him to say that any enhancement would be fair. The landlord failed to adduce any evidence of the existence of any customary rate, and it appeared to the learned Judge that there had been no increase in the assets of the tenure holders, namely, that the assets on which the rent was fixed at the time of the settlement of these tenures remained the same up to the present date. On these considerations he is of opinion that no ground has been made out for enhancement of rent. There has been no change of position of the parties, and the tenure holder has not got greater advantage than what he had at the time of the settlement 'I here is no reason, therefore, to allow more profit to the landlord than what he is entitled to under the kabuliyat.
3. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs one gold mohur.
4. It is conceded that this judgment will govern Second Appeals Nos. 2378, 2379 and 2380 of 1921. These appeals will be dismissed with costs one gold mohur in each.