1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for rent of a certain holding. It appears that the land formed part of a Government khas mahal and the defendant was an under-tenant of the plaintiff By a contract made previously to the record-of-rights, the defendant had agreed to pay to the plaintiff rent at the rate of Rs. 10.2. In preparing the record-of-rights, the Revenue Officer, acting in accordance with the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act as it stood in March 1898, fixed the fair rent payable by the defendant in respect of his holding at Rs. 12. The Revenue Officer appears to have been acting under the provisions of Section 104 Sub-section (2) and Section 101(2)(d). The lower Courts have allowed the plaintiff rent at the contract rate of Rs. 10.2, and, the lower appellate Court states that the Government had no right to enhance the rent of its tenants' under-tenant, that the original agreement of tenancy executed between the predecessors of the present parties was still binding upon them, and, therefore, the khatian must be held to be incorrect. We think that this decision is clearly erroneous. Under Section 104 as it then stood, the Revenue Officer had clearly jurisdiction to settle a fair and equitable rent in respect of the land held by the under-tenant. Under Section 107 his decision on that point would have the force of a decree and would be res judicata between the parties, see Brahmanunda Mahapatra v. Arjun Raut 1 C.L.J. 310. That being so, it follows that this appeal must be allowed, and the decree of the lower appellate Court varied by giving the plaintiff a decree for rent at the rate of Rs. 12.
2. The plaintiff-appellant must have his costs of this appeal.