JUDGMENT 1. The Defendants in the two suits out of which these appeals arise held in equal shares mouzah Kasthagura under the Plaintiff's and bad been paving a rent of Rs. 470 per annum. The Plaintiffs brought the present suits in order to enhance the rent up to the customary limit payable by persons holding similar tenures in the vicinity. The lower Courts have found that there is no customary rate payable by persons in the vicinity and they have, therefore, assessed a fair and equitable rent which they found to be Rs. 1,365 which is about 70 per cent, on the net collections. 2. The Defendants have appealed and their main ground is that though under the kabuliyat under which they held the mouzah they are liable to pay a greater rent than they have hitherto been paying, yet the enhancement is restricted by the terms of the kabuliyat and they are not liable to pay at a greater rate than 7 1/2 annas per bigha of cultivated lands and 3 1/2 annas per bigha of uncultivated lands. They also object that even if the kabuliyat does not put any restriction on the landlord's power to enhance still the rent fixed by the lower Courts is beyond what is fair and equitable. 3. The decision of the first question raised in this appeal must, it is conceded, turn on the terms of the kabuliyat which was given by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs in the year 1864. In that kabuliyat the Defendants agreed to pay rent at a rate which I have mentioned. They covenanted to pay "rent kist by kist, year after year, as per demand in this Pargana according to kabuliyat." The kabuliyat goes on as follows :-" We will get no remission of jama on drought inundation and patit. We will go on in peaceable possession and enjoyment of the laud by cultivating it ourselves or by letting it in jote. If in addition to the land mentioned in this kabuliyat any excess be found on measurement we will pay separately at the rate of 7 1/2 annas for a bigha of hasil and 3 1/2 annas per bigha of jungle." Now, there is no period fixed in this Kabuliyat during which this settlement was to last. If in addition to the land mentioned in this kabuliyat any excess be found on measurement we will pay separately at the rate of 7 1/2 annas for a bigha of hasil and 3 1/2 annas per bigha of jungle." Now, there is no period fixed in this Kabuliyat during which this settlement was to last. It is neither expressed to be for any term of years nor in perpetuity, It is worthy of remark that in their written statements the Defendants did not rely on this kabuliyat as fixing the rates in perpetuity. They pleaded that their tenure had lasted from the time of the permanent settlement. If they could have established that their tenure would not have been liable to enhancement at all. In that attempt they have failed, they also pleaded that by an oral agreement contemporaneous with the kabuliyat these rates had been fixed in perpetuity and that it was on account of this oral agreement that they were induced to execute the kabuliyat. That plea has likewise failed. They are, therefore, now driven to rely on the terms of the kabuliyat itself. We are unable to find that there is any agreement in this kabuliyat that the rate named therein should be fixed in perpetuity and we are confirmed in this view by the scanty materials on the record regarding the past history of the tenure. It appears to have been in existence so long ago as 1803 and in a previous litigation regarding the rent it was decided in 1863, about a year before this kabuliyat came into existence, that the rent of the tenure was enhance-able and we find no reason to think that that, condition was in any way altered by the terms of the kabuliyat before us. It is true that in the year 1883 by an agreement between the parties rent of this tenure was adjusted. There was at that time litigation between the parties respecting some other land and in coming to a settlement regarding that other land they included matters which threatened to bring about a litigation regarding this mouzah also. Under that solenamah, the area of the mouzah with which we are now concerned was measured. It was found that the Defendants in 1883 were holding a larger amount of cultivated land than they had held in 1863, but a smaller amount of uncultivated land. Under that solenamah, the area of the mouzah with which we are now concerned was measured. It was found that the Defendants in 1883 were holding a larger amount of cultivated land than they had held in 1863, but a smaller amount of uncultivated land. Applying the same rates as had been agreed upon in 1864, namely, 7 1/2 annas per bigha of cultivated land and 3 1/2 annas per bigha of uncultivated land, the Defendants agreed to pay Rs. 470 as the rent being an increase of Rs. 6 over the rent they had agreed to pay in the kabuliyat of 1864. But there is nothing in this settlement to show that the identity of rates was maintained because the parties were under an idea that the rates fixed in the kabuliyat of 1864 were permanent. As has been pointed out by Mr. Hill who appears for the Respondents, we know nothing of the circumstances under which that solenamah was effected and we are ignorant of the causes which led the parties to agree in 1883 to the same rates being mentioned as were fixed in 1864. We are accordingly of opinion that the first contention of the Appellants must fail. They are liable to pay at enhanced rates under the provisions of sec. 7 of the Bengal Tenancy Act; and their liability to pay an enhanced rent has not been in any way restricted by the kubuliyat which was executed in 1864. 4. The next question which we have to dual with is whether the rent that has been fixed by the lower Courts is a fair and equitable rent. The amount, as we have mentioned, has been fixed as being 70 per cent. on the net assets, after deducting collection charges and therefore leaves the tenure holder 30 per cent. as their net profits. But the rent fixed is a very large advance on the previous rent which has been very nearly trebled. The enhancement seems under the circumstances to be somewhat larger than is called for and we think that it would have been fair and equitable to have allowed the tenure-holders a net profit of 40 per cent. which would increase the rent from Rs 470 to Rs. 1,175. That of itself is 2 1/2 times the amount of the existing rent. which would increase the rent from Rs 470 to Rs. 1,175. That of itself is 2 1/2 times the amount of the existing rent. We, therefore, modify the decrees of the Courts below and direct that the rent in future be fixed at Rs. 1,175 per annum and maintaining the progressive increase fixed by the Munsif in the years 1308, 1309, 1310 we direct that in the 4th year, namely, 1311 and succeeding years the full amount of Rs. 1,175 be paid. The consequence is that these appeals are allowed in part and we direct that each party bear their own costs in this Court but we leave unaltered the directions of the lower Courts as regards the payment of costs in those Courts.