JUDGMENT Rampini, J. - These are twelve Letters Patent appeals against a decision of Mr. Justice Geidt, dated the 24th April 1906. The point raised in these appeals is as to the application of sec. 20 of Act IX of 1880, B.C. The facts of the case are these. The Plaintiffs, the landlords, sue 12 tenants for bhaoli rents, and the tenants rely upon sec. 20 of Act IX of 1880 and contend that the Plaintiffs are precluded from recovering these rents, because they did not enter them in the road-cess return, which was sumbitted to the Collector in Assin 1302. It appears that some years ago the tenants paid bhaoli rents for these lands. Subsequently they paid nakdi rents for them. Then in 1300 they agreed to pay bhaoli rents from the beginning of 1302. The agricultural year in that part of the country begins in Assar. The road-cess return was submitted in Assin 1302, that is, three months after the commencement of the agricultural year. No bhaoli rent had then been collected, so the Plaintiffs zemindars entered in the return the amount of nakdi rent which the raiyats had been paying. Now the pleader for the tenant Defendants contends that the Plaintiffs are precluded by sec. 20, sub-sec. (b) from recovering any rent at all. The pleader for the Plaintiffs-Respondents, however, urges that the reason why the bhaoli rent was not entered in the return was because the money value of bhaoli rent is calculated on the annual value of the landlord's share of the crops, estimated on the average of the 3 years just preceding the valuation, or revaluation, of this land. Now, he says the return could not include the bhaoli rent during those 3 years and therefore the nakdi rent received during the preceding 3 years was put down. 2. The pleader for the Defendants Appellants says that this is wrong and that the Plaintiffs should not have put down anything at all, except on explanation as to why they did not enter the annual rent payable by the tenants. This, perhaps, would not have satisfied the Collector, as the Collector would not have been able to assess the road-cess payable on the land if the return had been so prepared. 3. This, perhaps, would not have satisfied the Collector, as the Collector would not have been able to assess the road-cess payable on the land if the return had been so prepared. 3. The pleader for the Plaintiffs-Respondents further contends that whether the action of the zemindar was right or wrong they have not in any way contravened the provisions of sub-sec. (b) to sec. 20, because they have not attempted to collect rent at a higher rate than that mentioned in the return. He argues that the rate of rent can only be said to be changed when the proportion in which the bhaoli rent is payable is increased. But in this case he says there was no change in the rate of rent but merely an alteration in the kind of rent, bhdoli rent being substituted if or nakdi. 4. This contention of the learned pleader for the Respondents seems to me to be sound. The Plaintiffs-Respondents have not contravened the provisions of sub-sec. (b) to sec. 20 of the Act. 5. The pleader for the Defendants-Appellants raises a further contention upon sub-sec. (a) to sec. 20. He says that the return was incorrect in another respect. Against the name of the tenant Appellant, the first Appellant in the 12 suits, the area of the land entered in his occupation was 8 bighas and the rent Rs. 37. As a matter of fact, however, he says that an exchange had taken place among the raiyats and he was then in occupation of 17 bighas at a rental of Rs. 89. It seems to me, however, that the law does not require that the whole of the rent which is payable by a particular tenant should be entered after that person's name. Sub-sec. (a) to sec. 20 only requires that all the lands for which rent is payable should be entered in the return and it has never been said that this is not the case. On the contrary, Mr. Justice Geidt in his judgment says that all the land for which rent was payable was entered in this return. In these circumstances there appear to me to be no grounds for these appeals and I would dismiss the appeals with costs, five gold mohurs. Woodroffe, J. I agree.