JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendants who are his lessees for recovery of arrears of rent for the period from 6th June, 1906, to the 7th December, 1908. The rent reserved by the lease is Rs. 1,900, and for the three years in question arrears are claimed at that rate as also interest. The defendants pleaded that they had paid the rent claimed by the plaintiff and that nothing was due from them. They also pleaded that there was a revision of revenue in the years in question, and that they were therefore entitled to a remission of their rent. In support of their plea of payment they produced a pocket book which contained certain entries of payments made. The court below regarded the entries in the pocket book as equivalent to receipts for the rent paid, and applying the provisions of section 108 of the Agra Tenancy Act presumed that the payments entered in the book amounted to an acquittance in full of all demands up to the dates on which the entries were made, This view of the lower court is clearly erroneous. The entries in the pocket book produced do not amount to receipts within the meaning of the Tenancy Act. No receipt such as is referred to in section 108 was produced, and therefore the presumption which arises under sub-section (2) of the section, could not be held, to have arisen in the present case. The entries in the pocket book are admitted by the plaintiff. The last of them was made on the 6th of December, 1908. Two of the earlier entries, namely, those of the 13th of November, 1908 and 21st of November, 1908, are distinctly mentioned as entries in respect of rent for Sambats 1961 and 1962 respectively, that is to say, for the rent payable for the years 1904 and 1905. The entries anterior to these two entries are clearly entries of rent paid for previous years, and cannot be deemed to be entries of rent for subsequent years. The last entry, namely, that dated the 6th December, 1908, of the sum of Rs. 1,754, is alleged by the defendants to be an entry of the rent for the year 1963 Sambat. The last entry, namely, that dated the 6th December, 1908, of the sum of Rs. 1,754, is alleged by the defendants to be an entry of the rent for the year 1963 Sambat. The plaintiff was called as a witness by the defendants and he swore that this last mentioned item had been received on account of rent for the years prior to the years in question. There is nothing to contradict his statements, and it seems from the fact that the rent reserved by the lease was Rs. 1,900; this last entry was apparently an entry of the balance of the rent for the year 1962 and not of the rent for the following years. In the absence of any evidence showing that the hundi referred to in the entry was given for the rent of a year subsequent to 1962, we are unable to hold that the statement made on oath by the plaintiff on the point is untrue, and that the entry relates to a subsequent period. The probabilities are, that the hundi was received for the arrears of rent due for 1962 Fasli and also for interest on those arrears. For these reasons we are not satisfied that any part of the rent claimed for the years in question was paid by the defendants, and we are of opinion that the plaintiffs' claim for those arrears is correct. It is, however, urged on behalf of the defendants-respondents who have preferred an objection under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the court below ought to have deducted from the amount claimed a portion of the rent which represents twice the amount of Government revenue remitted by the Local Government in the years in question. From the evidence adduced it appears that remission of revenue was granted only in respect of three villages in the year 1313 Fasli. But there is nothing to show that in accordance with the provisions of section 51 of the Agra Tenancy Act the rent payable by tenants generally or by the defendants who are lessees, was remitted. No order showing that a remission was granted has been produced. The Patwaris, who were examined as witnesses, deposed that they received no order as to the remission of the rent payable by the defendants. We are, therefore, unable to hold that the rent of the defendants was remitted. No order showing that a remission was granted has been produced. The Patwaris, who were examined as witnesses, deposed that they received no order as to the remission of the rent payable by the defendants. We are, therefore, unable to hold that the rent of the defendants was remitted. Under the terms of the lease the defendants were liable to pay the Government revenue. If the revenue was remitted, they have obtained the benefit of the remission, and it may be that having regard to other provisions contained in their lease, the Collector did not pass any order for the remission of the rent payable by them. 2. In the absence of such an order we are unable to hold that the defendants are entitled to any further remission, and we are of opinion that the court below was right in this respect. 3. The result is that, we allow the appeal. We vary the decree of the court below, and decree the plaintiffs' claim in full with costs in both courts. 4. The objection under Order 41, Rule 22, is dismissed with costs.