JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent valued at less than Rs. 100. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of the appeal on the ground that no second appeal lies in this case, the only question being as to the amount of rent payable. The case comes from Sylhet and is consequently governed by Act VIII of 1869 (B.C.). An appeal u/s 102 of that Act lies only in cases in which a question of right to enhance or vary the rent of a raiyat or tenant or any question relating to a title to land or to some interest in land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto has been determined, by the judgment. In several cases it has been held that no appeal lies under that section in cases in which merely a question as to the amount of rent payable is involved. See the cases of Huro Pershad Chuckerbutty v. Sreedam Chunder Chowdhry 20 W.R. 15; Hurish Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Sreemutty Huree Bewah 20 W.R. 16; Nurubdessur Pershad Roy v. Sheikh Jungole 24 W.R. 49. See also the case of Satghuri v. Majidan 15 C. 107. Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885) provides for an appeal in cases where there is a decision on a question of the amount of rent annually payable by a tenant. These words do not occur in Section 100 of Act VII of 1869. We are accordingly of opinion that no second appeal lies in this case. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs. 2. This judgment will govern the other appeal (Second Appeal No. 2704 of 1911) which is also dismissed with costs.