1. This is as appeal by the plaintiff in a rent suit. The defendant claimed abatement and this was granted by both the Courts below. The Munsiff allowed a reduction of 4 annas from the amount of the annual rent and the Subordinate Judge granted a total reduction of Re. 1-14-9. The learned Judge pointed out in the course of his judgment that the onus of proving that he was entitled to abatement was upon the defendant and that what he was required no prove was firstly the area on which the present rent was assessed, and secondly, the area now in his possession. Both these facts were established by the plaint itself, so it was open to the defendant to avail him self of the admission therein made. In para. 2 of the plaint it was stated that the rent was assessed on a reputed area of 4 kani 11/2 gds, while in the schedule it was said that the present area was 3 kani 13 grounds and 2 kags. It therefore, followed that the defendant was on these admissions entitled to abatement as indicated above. On appeal it is contended that the area as given in para. 2 of the plaint was estimated by guess and that on the principle laid down in the case of Raj Kumar Protap Sahay v Ram Lal Singh  5 C.L.J. 538 the plaintiff was entitled to realize the rent claimed. It is further pointed out that in para. 4 of the written statement the defendants admitted that) there was no measurement at the time of settlement and therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that there has been any decrease in the area he should not have been given any abatement. On behalf of the respondent reliance is placed upon the case of Ejel Mullick v. Felai Mullick  21 C.L.J. 309, where upon the interpretation of the kabuliyat it was held that the landlord was entitled to obtain additional rent for excess land. That case is, however, distinguishable, for the simple reason that the decision was founded upon the construction of the kabuliyat but here there is no such document. Section 52(b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act provides for cases where the tenant is entitled to. reduction of rent. In the present case it is plain from the defendant's own admission that he has not succeeded in showing what the area settled with him was or that there has been any reduction in that area except; in so far that a portion of the land had been acquired by the District Board. To that extent only, therefore, can he claim abatement. The result is that this appeal is allowed, the decree of the Subordinate Judge set aside and that of the Court of first instance restored with costs in all the Courts.