1. These are two Letters Patent appeals from the judgment of my learned brother Patterson, J. The question that arises in the two rent suits is what the annual rate of rent payable for the tenancies is. It appears that there was a Section 105 proceeding between the landlord and the tenants and the case made is first of all that though for a great many years prior to that proceeding rent had been paid at a certain rate being the rate mentioned in the kabuliat, that rate was greater than the amount legally payable because the kabuliat rate represented an enhancement which was not permissible under Section 29, Bengal Tenancy Act. It is not doubted or disputed that the Settlement Officer proceeded upon the rate that had been paid under the kabuliat for many years. It is not disputed that he made up his mind that a fair and equitable rate would be arrived at by enhancing that rate by 3 annas in the rupee and it is clear from the proceedings that be applied that enhancement to the kabuliat rate and directed in the result that a certain figure, which is the figure now sued fur by the plaintiff, should be the fair and equitable rent.
2. The first question is whether upon showing that there was no dispute before the Settlement Officer as to whether the Kabuliat rate was a legally valid rate, the tenants can now in these rent suits go behind the judgment of the Settlement Officer as to what should be the fair and equitable rent for the future. In my judgment it is clear enough upon the lace of Section 105 that whatever process of reasoning be adopted and whatever method of approach be adopted what the Settlement Officer has to do in such a case is to settle a fair and equitable rent and that the provisions of Section 107 say that the Revenue Officer shall adopt the procedure of the Code and that his decision shall have the force of a decree of a, civil Court and subject to the provisions of S. l08 and Section 109-A shall be final. All that is addressed, as it would usually be addressed if one was dealing with the judgment of a Court, to the ultimate result declared or defined by the judgment. It is no intended to make the reasoning final, it is not intended to make mere intermediate inferences final. What is made final is the ultimate decision which is so much is the fair and equitable rent to be paid for the future.' I think therefore that so far as the particular years and particular tenancies are concerned, it is not open to the tenants, for the reasons which they give, to impeach the decision of the Settlement Officer. There was another allegation based upon an allegation of fraud. But it appears to me that there are very sufficient pleadings to define what the allegation of fraud is and that the evidence is altogether insufficient to impeach the solemn proceedings. The result is that these two Letters Patent appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.
3. I agree.