1. The question in this appeal is as to the amount of enhancement of rent which the plaintiff is entitled to on the ground of a rise in the average price of staple food crops. The Courts below are agreed that he is entitled to an enhancement. The first Court gave an enhancement of annas 5, pies 8 in the rupee making its calculation, in strict accordance with Section 32(b) of the Bengal Tenancy, Act. The Appellate Court has reduced the amount of the enhancement to 2 annas in the rupee on the ground of equitable considerations, purporting, to act under Section 35 of the Act. The main argument is that the Appellate Court was not justified in interfering in this way with the enhancement made in accordance with Section 32(b), unless it could point to some definite circumstances showing that it would be unfair and inequitable to make the enhancement. It appears that a Commissioner was appointed to make a local investigation and he reported the land to be good. The learned Judge is of opinion that the report of the Commissioner is not altogether in accordance with the weight of the evidence, and he points out that the year in which the Commissioner made the local investigation was a favourable one for agriculturists and that in other years the outturn of paddy might be considerably reduced. The Appellate Court, however, admits that there are no sufficient materials on the record to enable it to come to any precise conclusion as to the extent to which the appellant is entitled to relief, nor does it come to the conclusion that the condition of the land is had or that it would not bear such crops as would enable the land to carry the additional rent to which normally the landlord would be entitled under the provisions of the Act owing to the rise in the price of staple food crops. That being so, I am reduced to this state of facts that on the one hand Section 32(b) is imperative as to the manner in which the calculation is to be made where there has been a rise in the price of staple food crops and on the other hand there are no circumstances, at any rate none has been set out by the learned Judge, on which he could act under Section 35 and say that it would be unfair or inequitable to allow the enhancement in accordance with the provision of the law. That being the state of facts, it appears to me that there is no other alternative but to restore the order of the Munsif as to the extent of the enhancement, an order which, as I have pointed out, has been made on strict calculation according to the provisions of Section 32(b). The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the decree of the lower Appellate Court set aside and that of the Court of first instance restored with costs in this Court and in the lower Appellate Court.