JUDGMENT 1. The question raised in this suit was whether the Defendant tenant was entitled to abatement of rent by reason of a portion of the land in his occupation having been diluviated by the action of a river. The solution of this question depended upon the determination of another question, that question being, whether the lease granted to the Defendant by the Plaintiff landlord was a permanent mokurari lease, as contemplated by sec. 179 of the Bengal Tenancy Act; for, if it was a lease of that character, it is obvious that sub-cl. (f), cl. (3) of sec. 178 could not apply, and the Plaintiff, the landlord, would be entitled to recover rent as stipulated in the lease in question. The Court below has taken the opposite view. The words in the kabuliyat to which our attention has been called are as follows : " We, too, of our own free will, do execute this kabuliyat admitting the said land and rent to the effect that, on paying the stipulated land year by year, according to the instalments mentioned below and settling tenants, planting gardens and cultivating and sowing all sorts of crops on the said land, we and our sons, grandsons and heirs to succession shall continue to enjoy the produces thereof. The cultivation, non-cultivation, decrease, increase, diluviation or accretion, profits and loss of the said laud are all at our risk. We shall not on any ground or for any reason, be competent to raise plea for abatement of the stipulated rent neither shall you be entitled on any ground to increase the said land and rent," and so on. The terms that we have just referred to are, to our minds, clear enough; and it seems that the intention of the parties was to create a permanent mokurari lease in favour of the Defendant tenant. A question, however, has been raised by the learned vakil for the Respondent, that sec. 179 contemplates a case of a middleman's interests, and not the interest of the raiyat; but in the view that we take of the document itself, the question need hardly he discussed. If it were necessary, we should be prepared to hold that this was a creation of a middleman's interest. 179 contemplates a case of a middleman's interests, and not the interest of the raiyat; but in the view that we take of the document itself, the question need hardly he discussed. If it were necessary, we should be prepared to hold that this was a creation of a middleman's interest. However that may be, for the reasons that we have already mentioned, the view that has been taken by the Court below as to the character of the lease in question is not correct. The result is that the judgment of the Court below is set aside, the Plaintiff being entitled to recover the full rent as under the lease in question and the Defendant being entitled to no abatement in respect of the land which appears to have been diluviated. The Plaintiff will be entitled to his costs in all Courts.