JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent and ejectment under sec. 66 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The claim was for arrears at the rate of 8 annas per bigha up to 1312 and at the enhanced rate of Rs. 3 per bigha from 1313-1314 under the terms of the kabuliyat, dated the 10th of August 1901 : the Plaintiffs also asked for ejectment for the whole arrears. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the Plaintiffs were entitled to rent at the enhanced rate of Rs. 2-8 per bigha only for those lands which had been benefited by the irrigation works constructed by the Plaintiffs and gave a decree for ejectment for the whole arrears found due. 3. The learned District Judge on appeal agreed with the first Court as to the construction of the kabuliyat but modified the decree for ejectment by limiting it to the arrears for the last year in suit. 4. It is contended in second appeal before us that the decree for ejectment ought not to have been limited and that the enhanced rent should have been decreed for the entire holding. 5. On the first point it has been contended that the case of Sitanath v. Basudeb 2 C.L.J. 540 (1900) relied upon by the learned Judge was wrongly decided in that it is against the terms of sec. 66 and not supported by the authorities relied on by the Court. 6. Sec. 66 provides that "when an arrear of rent remains due from a tenant . . . . . at the end of the month of Jeth where the Fasli or Amli year prevails the landlord . . . may institute a suit for ejectment." Sec. 55, cl. (3) defines an arrear of rent as any instalment or part of an instalment not duly paid at or before the time when it falls due. Sec. 67 provides that an arrear shall bear interest from the date it became due. In places where the Fasli year prevails, if an arrear remains unpaid at the end of the month of Jeth, the landlord may institute a suit for ejectment, that is to say, the landlord can treat the tenant as a trespasser if the instalments up to Jeth are in arrear. In places where the Fasli year prevails, if an arrear remains unpaid at the end of the month of Jeth, the landlord may institute a suit for ejectment, that is to say, the landlord can treat the tenant as a trespasser if the instalments up to Jeth are in arrear. If he does not exercise that option at once but claims rent up to the end of Vado of the same year he treats the tenancy as existing after Jeth and cannot eject for that year. This was the plea of the Defendant in the Courts below and the same view has been pressed upon us. The Defendant not having appealed against the decree for ejectment for the arrears of 1314 it is not open to them to argue this point, in this appeal, so far as that portion of the decree is concerned. They may, however, rely upon this to contend that the decree given should not be extended so as to include the arrears prior to 1314. 7. The first case discussed by the learned Vakil for the Appellant is that of Sheikh Peer Bux v. Mowzah Ally Marsh 25 (1862) in which it was held that if a landlord receives rent for one year he cannot eject for arrears due previous to that year. Sir Barnes Peacock, C. J., said : "The receipt of rent for 1268 affirmed the tenancy and conclusively bound the Plaintiff from contending that the Defendant was a trespasser in 1268 : whereas the suit for ejectment is founded on the ground that, by reason of non-payment of rent up to the end of 1267, the Defendant's tenancy had expired and that he was liable to be ejected." The next case discussed is that of Jogeshuri v. Ebrahim I. L. R. 14 Cal. 33 (1886). That was a suit for the arrears of 1290 and one kist of 1291. Mr. Justice R. Mitter and Mr. Justice Grant, following the principle of the case in Marshall, said : "But forfeiture or determination of tenancy takes place when the tenant defaults to pay the rents due at the end of the year. If the landlord still treats the defaulter as his tenant, the right he has acquired under sec. 22 must be taken to have been waived." This case was followed in Sitanath v. Basudeb 2 C. L. J. 540 (1900) by Mr. If the landlord still treats the defaulter as his tenant, the right he has acquired under sec. 22 must be taken to have been waived." This case was followed in Sitanath v. Basudeb 2 C. L. J. 540 (1900) by Mr. Justice Banerjee and Mr. Justice Stevens. There is no material difference between the wordings of sec. 22 of Act VIII of 69 (B. C.) and sec. 66 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and we do not see any reason to dissent from the earlier decisions. In this view of the main question of law argued for the Appellants it is not necessary to decide the point raised by the Respondent. 8. As regards the construction of the kabuliyat we think the Courts below are right and the Plaintiffs have no just reason to complain. The result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs.