JUDGMENT Mullick, J. - The Plaintiff is a dar-putnidar in a Government Estate named Char Gadi and sues for arrears of rent for the years 1312 to 1315, B. S, at the rate of Rs. 37 per year in respect of a holding measuring 30 B. 9 K. 5 Ch. It is alleged that the rental was formerly Rs. 32-II but that as a result of settlement proceedings in 1904 it was enhanced at first to Rs. 38 and finally on the Defendant's objection fixed at Rs. 37. I is further alleged that the area of the holding was originally 30 bighas but was found by the settlement to be 30 B. 9 K. 5 Ch. In the Court of the Munsif the Defendant denied that his holding was situated in Char Gadi. He maintained that in another Estate he was in possession of a holding measuring 31 B. 16 K. at a rental of Rs. 32-II. The Munsif has decreed the suit at this rate. 2. On appeal the Subordinate Judge is of opinion that having signed the jamabandi the Defendant is bound by the settlement proceedings and he has therefore decreed the claim at the full rate of Rs. 37. 3. The Defendant now appeals and the only point urged in his behalf is that the learned Subordinate Judge has committed an error in law in holding that the Defendant is bound by the rate fixed by the settlement officer. 4. It is admitted that the settlement was carried out under Reg. VII of 1822. Now although the Regulation contains no (sic)sion strictly defining the powers of it does not authorise the settlement of fair rents; all that the settlement officer is entitled to do is to record the existing rent. Whatever may have been the view previously held by some Courts it is clear that since Act X 1859 came into operation this Court has always held that the provisions of secs. 7 and 9, Reg. Whatever may have been the view previously held by some Courts it is clear that since Act X 1859 came into operation this Court has always held that the provisions of secs. 7 and 9, Reg. VII 1882, must be read as qualified by Act X 1859 and subsequent Rent Ac's. See Nawab Najim 0f Bengal v. Ram Lal Ghosh 6 W. R. (Act X Rulings IS (1866), D'Silva v. Raj Coomar Dutt 16 W R 153 (1871), Enayetullah v. Nubo Coomar Sirkar 20 W. R. 207 (1873), Ledli v. Doorgamonee Dasi 21 W. R. 410 (1874), Akshaya Kumar Dutt v. Shama Charan I. L. R. 16 Cal. 586 (1889). 5. In the case before us I am satisfied that the Defendant has never admitted the enhanced rate. The mere fact that he signed the jamabandi is not sufficient to warrant the inference that. he did assent to the enhancement and he cannot therefore be made liable for the recorded rental. 6. But apart from the authorities above cited I am supported in my view of the scope of Reg. VII 1822 by the history of settlement law in Bengal. At the time of the Permanent Settlement rents in the English sense were unknown and a raiyat was not bound to pay more than the Pargannah or customary rate. An examination of the enactments passed between 1793 and 1859 shows that enhancements beyond this rate were not contemplated by the Legislature. It certainly does not appear that Reg. VII 1822 was enacted for the purpose of facilitating enhancements. That Regulation was passed because when the proposals for the Permanent Settlement of the ceded and conquered provinces were being considered it was found that little reliance could be placed on the experience gained in Bengal and that it was essential to collect more data. This is clear from the preamble to the Regulation which states that the purpose of the Regulation was not to make any general or extensive enhancement of the jama but to ascertain, settle and record the rights of all persons collecting the rent or revenue payable on account of land. When the Courts began to interpret this Regulation as authorising the entry of only admitted rates the Legislature enacted first Act VIII (B. C.) 1879 and then Chap. X Act VIII 1885 for the purpose of enabling the settlement officer to settle fair rates. 7. When the Courts began to interpret this Regulation as authorising the entry of only admitted rates the Legislature enacted first Act VIII (B. C.) 1879 and then Chap. X Act VIII 1885 for the purpose of enabling the settlement officer to settle fair rates. 7. With a like object, Reg. VII 1822 was repealed in the North-Western Provinces by Act XIX 1873 which in its turn was repealed by the U. P. Act of 1901. 8. I would accordingly hold that where, as in this case, the tenant disputes the rate of rent, a settlement officer acting under Reg. VII 1822 is not competent to make any enhancement. The landlord's proper remedy is to sue for such enhancement in conformity with the tenancy law. The Appeal is therefore allowed. The decree of the Subordinate Judge is discharged and that of the Munsif restored with costs throughout. Jenkins, C.J. 9. I agree that this Appeal should be allowed and the decree of the Munsif restored. As the proceedings were under Reg. VII of 1822 and not under the Tenancy Act the Defendant was not bound by the enhancement of rent in the absence of his assent, and there is no finding that he did assent. On the contrary it appears that he objected.