JUDGMENT 1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Brett, dated the 19th March 1907. The suit was brought by a landlord for enhancement of the rent of the Defendants and also for alteration of the rent of their land, on the ground of increase in area having been discovered on measurement. In other words, the landlords sued for enhancement, under sec. 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and for increase of rent, under sec. 52 of that Act. 2. The lower Appellate Court gave the Plaintiff a decree. It was held by that Court that there had been a rise in the prices of the staple food-crops which entitled the landlord to an enhancement of rent to the extent of one anna ten pie in the rupee, and also that, on the land being measured by the same standard as before, there had been found to be an increase in the area. 3. In second appeal Mr. Justice Brett came to the conclusion that the two causes of action should not have been combined in the same suit and therefore he set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and dismissed the suit entirely. 4. The Plaintiff now appeals to us and urges, first, that there is nothing in the law which prevents one suit being brought for enhancement, under sec. 30 and for increase of rent, under sec. 52 of the Bengal Tenancy Act; secondly, that there is no reason why these two causes of action should not be combined against the same Defendants, and, thirdly, that this point was never taken in either of the lower Courts or in the memorandum of appeal to this Court and therefore Mr. Justice Brett should not have dealt with it. 5. We think that these pleas must prevail. 6. It is admitted that there is nothing in the Bengal Tenancy Act which prohibits the joinder of these two causes of action in one suit. Under the old law (sec. 18 of Act VIII of 1869), they could have been combined in one suit, because they were both grounds of enhancement; but in the new Bengal Tenancy Act a rise in prices of staple food-crops is made a ground of enhancement, while an increase in area is a ground for increase of rent; and sec. 45 of the CPC expressly allows such joinder. 45 of the CPC expressly allows such joinder. When two causes of action arise against the same Defendants, as in this case, in respect of the same property, it is manifestly for the convenience of the parties and for the purpose of avoiding multiplicity of suits that the two causes of action should be united, and one suit brought. 7. We therefore set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Judge of this Court and restore that of the District Judge. 8. The pleader for the Respondents before us asks that we should remand the case to the Judge of this Court to decide the other questions which arise in it. But, after hearing the pleader for the Appellant on this point, we consider that there are no other questions which need be enquired into. The questions as to whether there has been a rise in the prices and an increase in the area of the land held by the Defendants are questions of fact, and it does not appear to us that there is anything inequitable or exorbitant in the increase of 1 anna 10 pie per rupee which has been allowed by the lower Appellate Court. 9. The appeal is accordingly decreed with costs of both the hearings in this Court. This decision also governs Appeals Nos. 51 to 56 of 1907.