JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal against a decision of the District Judge of Rajshahye, dated the 22nd June 1903. The suit is brought for enhancement for rent; and the subject of the suit is a piece of bastu land situate within the Boalia Municipality. 2. The District Judge has pointed out that the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act are not applicable to the land in dispute; but, nevertheless, he has proceeded, as he says, "on the principle underlying that Act," to grant enhancement of rent. 3. The Defendant is the purchaser from the former tenant, who used to pay rent for the land in dispute at Rs. 2 per annum. The Plaintiff has apparently accepted him as tenant because he has brought this suit against him for enhancement of rent. 4. The District Judge has given the Plaintiff a decree not only for enhancement of rent, in future, but for the rent of one year at the rate of Rs. 10 per bigha. 5. The Defendant now appeals to this Court; and before us two grounds of appeal have been taken, namely, first, that the rent of laud of this nature cannot be enhanced otherwise than by contract; and, secondly, that assuming that it can be enhanced otherwise than by contract back rent, at an enhanced rate cannot be decreed. 6. There can be no question as to the correctness of the second of these grounds of appeal; for the learned pleader for the Respondent admits that the decree for back rent given in this case is incorrect. 7. We are also of opinion that the first ground of appeal must prevail and that the learned Judge in the Court below was not right in giving the Plaintiff a decree for enhancement of rent in the circumstances of the case. It appears to us that if the Plaintiff had wished to enhance the rent of the land in dispute, he should have given the Defendant notice either to quit the land or to pay rent at a certain rate. Had he done so he would have been entitled either to sue for ejectment, or for arrears of rent or damages at the rate mentioned in the notice. He has not clone this; and therefore the suit must fail. It is to be noticed that the Defendant has no permanent rights in this land. Had he done so he would have been entitled either to sue for ejectment, or for arrears of rent or damages at the rate mentioned in the notice. He has not clone this; and therefore the suit must fail. It is to be noticed that the Defendant has no permanent rights in this land. As has been found by the learned District Judge, "there is nothing to show that the Defendant's title to the disputed land is of a permanent nature." The Defendant has a non-permanent title of tenant at will. 8. The learned pleader for the Respondent has called attention to two cases, namely, the case of Ranee Lalunmonee v. Rajah Ajodhya Ram 23 W.R. 61 (1874), and the case of Trilochun Doss v. Gagan Chunder Dey 24 W.R. 413 (1875). But these cases, however, are entirely against, him and in support of the view which we take. This appeal is therefore decreed with costs.