JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Plaintiffs in a suit under sec. 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Defendants have been entered in the record-of-rights as raiyats holding at a fixed rate of rent. The area in their occupation is stated to be 43 bighas, and the rent payable in respect thereof Rs. 101-6-9. The Plaintiffs ask for a declaration that the Defendants are not raiyats at a fixed rate of rent. In the first place it is plain that the entry in the record-of-rights must be presumed to be correct till the contrary is shown. In the second place, the Defendants have established that since 1882 they have been in occupation of 43 bighas of land and have paid rent for the same at the rate of, Rs. 101-6-9 a year. Consequently, the statutory presumption mentioned in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act arises. That sub-section provides that ''if it is proved in any suit or other proceeding under this Act that either a tenure-holder or raiyat and his predecessors-in-interest has held at a rent or rate of rent which has not been changed during the twenty years immediately before the institution of the suit or proceeding, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that they have held at that rent or rate of rent from the time of the Permanent Settlement. The question in controversy is, whether the landlords have shown the contrary within the meaning of this sub-section. The landlords have, for this purpose, produced their collection papers. These papers show that in 1864 the tenants held 36 bighas 19 cottahs at a rent of Rs. 92-6; in 1865, 38 bighas 10 cottahs at Rs. 94-11-5, in 1868, 39 bighas at Rs. 95-6-9; in 1874, 38 bighas 10 cottahs at Rs. 94-10-9; in 1875, 41 bighas 10 cottahs at Rs. 97-10-9; and in 1878, 43 bighas at Rs. 101-5-9. It has been argued on behalf of the landlord that these figures show that the Defendants have not held at a rent or rate of rent which has been uniform from the time of the Permanent Settlement. In our opinion, this contention cannot be supported. 2. 97-10-9; and in 1878, 43 bighas at Rs. 101-5-9. It has been argued on behalf of the landlord that these figures show that the Defendants have not held at a rent or rate of rent which has been uniform from the time of the Permanent Settlement. In our opinion, this contention cannot be supported. 2. It was pointed out by this Court in the case of Huronath v. Amir W.R. 230 (1842), that a small variation which was unexplained was not sufficient to rebut the presumption which arose under sec. 4 of the Bengal Rent Act of 1859. It was similarly observed in the case of Anundloll v. Hills 4 W.R.; Act X Ruling, p. 33 (1865); that an unexplained variation of one rupee in a total jama of Rs. 60 was not a material variation, so as to deprive the tenant of the benefit of the presumption of uniform payment from the time of the Permanent Settlement. In the case before us, no doubt, there is a small variation in the rent; at the same time, there is a variation in the area as well; consequently, the inference may legitimately be drawn, as, indeed, has been done by the District Judge, that the variation in the rent was due to variation in the area. This view does not militate against the decision in Bissessur v. Woomachurn W.R. 44 (1867). In that case, there was a variation of the rent from Rs. 11-13 to Rs. 13-4 and it was argued on the authority of the decision in Anundloll v. Hills 4 W.R.; Act X Ruling, p. 33 (1865), that the statutory presumption had not been rebutted; but this contention was overruled, because it was established that the rent had been enhanced on the occasion of a transfer of the holding. In the case before us, there are no circumstances to support a possible hypothesis that the tenants did at any time submit to an enhancement of their rent [Gopal Mundul v. Nobbo Kishen W.R.; Act X Ruling, p. 83 (1866)], on the other hand, the small variation in the rent has been sufficiently explained by a very nearly corresponding variation in the area. The presumption under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act cannot consequently be deemed to have been rebutted. The presumption under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act cannot consequently be deemed to have been rebutted. The result is that the decree of the Court below is affirmed, and this appeal dismissed with costs.