1. We think that the parties may have intended that the document which has been placed before us should not be taken to be a lease; but the question will still remain what is the legal effect of the document having regard to the actual words used. Notwithstanding that the document is described as a deed of contract or cheaklipatra, and the fact that there are some provisions in it which are consistent both with, the applicant being and not being a tenant, I think that there are provisions which can only be explained on the assumption that be was a tenant, and those are the provisions that he is to be put into possession for a specific term of years, namely, four years, and that he is to pay a specified amount of paddy, whatever might be the quantity actually grown, and further the price of paddy was fixed.
2. Under these circumstances, I hold that this was a suit for rent for agricultural land and, therefore, not within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. The Rule is made absolute with costs, the hearing fee being assessed at one gold mohur.
3. It will be open to the opposite party to bring another suit in the Civil Court and doubtless the Court will, if any question of limitation arises, take into consideration and exclude the period during which the opposite party has been litigating, so far as I can see, bona fide in a Court which is not a Court of competent jurisdiction.