JUDGMENT 1. It was conceded at the outset by Mr. Sinha in this case that if this suit was to be treated as one based on trespass then it must fail, as it would clearly be barred. We have read through the plaint, written statements, and issues in this case, and it seems to me to be clear that the suit was based on trespass and on trespass only. The mere fact that there was an alternative claim for rent does not disturb that view, because that claim was based on Section 157 of the Bengal Tenancy Act: on the contrary, this, if anything, goes to confirm the view that the suit was one of trespass. 2. In this view, we must confirm the decree with costs.