1. This is a suit for rent at the rate of Rs. 22-2-6, and by way of defence to this claim it was pleaded that the rent was only Rs. 7-1-9. It was ultimately admitted by the plaintiff that the original rent was Rs. 7-1-9, but it was claimed that it had been enhanced, and rightly enhanced, to the figure at which it is now sought to be recovered.
2. The only point that arises on appeal is whether the provision contained in Section 29, Clause (b), road with the second proviso of the Bengal Tenancy Act does not afford a complete answer to the plaintiff's claim.; It is contended that it does, and that, therefore, the decree of the District Judge is erroneous. Reading Clause (b) with the second proviso,: it is evident that a landlord to entitle himself to recover more than the rate indicated in Clause (b) must establish the conditions set forth in the second proviso, that is. to say, when, the enhancement is on the ground of improvement it is incumbent on him to show, that the improvement has been effected and. that it exists and substantially produces its estimated effect in respect of the holding, Now, what are the findings of fact in the, lower appellate Court which can be claimed as in any way satisfying these requirements? Merely this. The District Judge says that no attempt has been made to show that the improvement in consideration of which this enhancement was accepted, has not the anticipated effect upon the produce; in other words, the learned Judge throws upon the tenant the burden that rests in law upon the landlord. It follows that the judgment of the District Judge cannot be supported; nor do we think that in this case we should remand the suit for further determination, inasmuch as the evidence that was placed before us contains nothing which satisfies the conditions set forth in Section 29, We must, therefore, reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the Munsif. The plaintiff must pay the present appellant's costs in the District Court and in the High Court.