JUDGMENT 1. We think that Section 4 of the Estates Land Act must be read subject to the provisions of Section 27, which states that the amount of rent must be presumed to be affected by the condition which appertained to the holding in the preceding revenue year. 2. But the lower Courts found that by immemorial custom the condition appertaining to the holdings in the plaint mittah is that no rent should be charged for lands left fallow, in other words, the rent for the whole holding in any particular fasli should be calculated only on the cultivated area. We think that condition is not against the statutory provision in Section 4 of the Estates Land Act, as Section 4 by its opening clause saves such and similar conditions. Our view, we think, is supported by the judgment of this Court in Second Appeal No. 2034 of 1900. We, therefore, dismiss this second appeal (the plaintiffs mittadars being the second appellants before us) with costs.