JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - I am doubtful, whether the Plaintiff, on the facts of this case, has brought his case within the terms of proviso (1), sec. 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. When we look at the judgment of the learned District Judge, at p. 8 of the Paper-book, and ascertain how he arrived at the rent of Rs. 30 odd, viz., by striking an average for four years of the rents of the four preceding years, I entertain very grave doubt whether the result can be said to have been the rate of rent actually paid for a continuous period of not less than three years immediately preceding the period for which the rent is claimed. But, assuming in the Plaintiff's favour that the case does fall within the proviso, I am of opinion that that proviso does not control sub-sec. (b) of sec. 29. The proviso clearly applies only to cl. (a) and it is difficult to see how it can be said to apply to cl. (b). This particular point was not necessary, apparently, for the decision of the case of Mothura Mohun Lahiri v. Mati Sarkar ILR 25 Cal. 781 (1898). But if it were, speaking with every deference to the Judges who decided that case, I do not think that sufficient effect was given to the clear language of sub-sec. (b) of sec. 29. In the result then it is sufficient to say, in answer to the second question referred, that, in the circumstances of the ease, the lower Court was not justified in giving the Plaintiff a decree at the rate of Rs. 30 odd, as it was in contravention of the provisions of cl. (b), sec. 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The appeal will accordingly be allowed with all costs in this Court and in the Courts below. Ghose, J. I agree with my Lord in the answer which he proposes to give to the reference before this Full Bench. There is, however, one word which I should desire to say with reference to the judgment in the case of Mothura Mohun Lahiri v. Mati Sarkar ILR 25 Cal. 781 (1898) to which I was a party. In that case the question was raised, at what rate was the Plaintiff entitled to recover rent. The Plaintiff adduced in support of his case a kabuliyat covenanting to pay a certain rent. 781 (1898) to which I was a party. In that case the question was raised, at what rate was the Plaintiff entitled to recover rent. The Plaintiff adduced in support of his case a kabuliyat covenanting to pay a certain rent. That kabuliyat, however, failed, because it was in contravention of the provisions of sec. 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. But the Defendant admitted in his own deposition in the case that he had been paying for some years at the rate of Rs. 50 which was a lower rate than the rate mentioned in the kabuliyat; and we held, having regard to proviso (1) to sec. 29, that the Plaintiff was entitled to recover rent at the rate admitted by the Defendant, because that must be taken to be fair and equitable under sec. 27 of the Act. Had it not been for the admission of the Defendant, I do not think we would have given the Plaintiff a decree in the suit at the rate of Rs. 50 per year. However that may be, as has been pointed out by the learned Chief Justice, it was not necessary in that case to refer to the provisions of sec. 29, or rather of the proviso (1) to that section, in deciding that case. I am, however, bound to say that, upon further consideration, I think the argument that has been submitted to us by the Appellant's vakil in this case is correct. I, therefore, feel no hesitation in resiling from the view I expressed with reference to the proviso (1) to see. 29 in the case of Mothura Mohun Lahiri v. Mati Sarkar ILR 25 Cal. 781 (1898). Rampini, J. 2. I agree with the judgment of my Lord the Chief Justice. The learned District Judge has, in this case, made two mistakes. In the first place, he has given the Plaintiff a decree at an average rate, which he was not justified in giving. In the second place, the decree that he has given contravenes the provisions of cl. (b) of sec. 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The proviso to that section only does away with the necessity of the contract being in writing and registered but it does not abrogate the terms of cl. In the second place, the decree that he has given contravenes the provisions of cl. (b) of sec. 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The proviso to that section only does away with the necessity of the contract being in writing and registered but it does not abrogate the terms of cl. (b) which lays down that the rent must not be enhanced so as to exceed by more than two annas in the rupee the rent previously payable by the raiyat. For these reasons I would answer both the questions referred to this Bench in the negative. Harington, J. 3. I agree in the judgment which has been delivered by the Chief Justice. Brett, J. I agree with my Lord the Chief Justice and would answer the questions referred to us in the manner suggested by him.