JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. and Geidt, J. - This is a suit to eject the Defendant from a small piece of land situated at Alipur. The Defendant says that he is not liable to be ejected, because he holds under a permanent tenure. It appears that by a kobala, dated the let of July 1822, the two bighas of land in question were sold to two persona of the names of Baloram Dey and Rup Chand Dey, and it appears that by a pattah, dated the 9th of July 1822, the then owner of the land granted a lease of the two bighas to the said Baloram Dey and Rup Chand Dey. The property was mortgaged in July 1843 and sold again in June 1846, and, again in June 1876 and to the present Defendant on the 20th of February 1893. The question we have to decide turns upon what is the true effect of the pattah of the 9th of July 1822, whether it created a fresh tenancy or whether it was in fact a recognition of a then existing tenancy, the origin of which is not known, and was only executed for the purpose of placing the name of the purchasers under the kobala of 1822, in the place of their the then vendors in the sheristha of the landlord. We are familiar with this class of case, and as I have observed on previous occasions, each case must depend upon its own circumstances. For nearly eighty years the same rent, the rent reserved by the pattah of 1822, and as appears from that pattah the rent previously reserved and no other has been paid. There has been no attempt at enhancement, and, there have been the dealings with the property, to which I have referred. These dealings have not been formally recognised by the landlord, but, I have no doubt but that he must have known of them. He took rent from the various owners from time to time though not in the dakhilas recognising them as the tenants. The mere fact of an acceptance of rent at the same rate for a long period of years would not be conclusive against the landlord to show that the lease was of a permanent nature, if the origin of the lease be known, and it appears that originally it was not of a permanent nature. The mere fact of an acceptance of rent at the same rate for a long period of years would not be conclusive against the landlord to show that the lease was of a permanent nature, if the origin of the lease be known, and it appears that originally it was not of a permanent nature. The mere fact that a landlord for a series of years has not thought fit to enhance the rent, cannot, as against him, be taken to have the effect of converting that which was not a permanent lease into a permanent lease. Is the pattah of the 9th of July 1822 the creation of a fresh tenancy or is it only a recognition of an existing one ? In the pattah itself there are no words indicating that the tenure was of a permanent nature. And, if upon its construction, we regard it as creating a fresh tenancy, it would be difficult to say that it created a permanent tenancy. The document recognises that Baloram Dey and Rup Chand Dey are in possession at the time of the pattah; that there has been a previous tenancy; that the rent of the former tenancy was the same rent as is reserved by the document now under consideration; and, it gives the property to the lessees to enjoy it by holding possession of it like the former tenant and making cultivation. This was preceded by the kobala, to which I have referred, and though there is no direct evidence, nor is it likely that there would be such at this distance of time, that the landlord was aware of the kobala, looking at the terms of the pattah it is not an unfair inference that the landlord knew of it. In my opinion, the pattah was not intended to operate as the creation of a fresh tenancy, but as a recognition of an existing one, the origin of which is not known and that its true effect was merely to recognise as tenants, Baloram Dey and Rup Chand Dey, in place of the previous tenant. It operates as a mutation pattah. In this view the judgment of the Court below is right. This view is fortified by the conduct of the parties themselves. It operates as a mutation pattah. In this view the judgment of the Court below is right. This view is fortified by the conduct of the parties themselves. For nearly eighty years in a district where the value of the land has gone up very much in value, there has been no attempt on the part of the landlord to enhance the rent or to get rid of the tenants, and the property has frequently been the subject of transfer. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed with costs. 2. I should like to add that this case illustrates forcibly how important it is, when one has to construe a document, in the vernacular, that the translation should be correct. The fresh translation we had made by the senior translator of the Court, put a different complexion on the case.