Judgement Appeal from a decree of the Board of Revenue (April 2, 1915) reversing a decree of the Commissioner of Lucknow and restoring a decree of the Deputy-Commissioner of Sitapur. The question in the appeal was whether the rent payable by the appellant under a lease dated February 23, 1891, was liable to enhancement in a Court of Revenue under Ch. VII.A of the Oudh Rent Act (XXII. of 188o). The facts and the material statutory provisions appears from the judgment of their Lordships. 1918. March 7. De Gruyther, K.C., and Amiend Jackson, for the appellant. There was no power under the Oudh Rent Act, 1886, to enhance the rent payable by the appellant. It is the essence of Ch. VILA added to the Act by the U. P. Act IV. of 1901 that it applies only to grants of land. The document of February 23, 1891, was not a grant; it gave no immediate right of occupation to the appellant. The appellant was a thikadar, and by virtue of s. 3, sub-s. 10, was not a tenant for the purposes of Ch. VILA. That chapter does not apply to thikadars. Sir Erle Richards, K.C., and O Gorman, for the respondents. Under the terms of ss. 107A and 107B the right to obtain an enhancement of rent exists as to all land in Oudh held at a favourable rent, subject to certain exceptions not applicable in this case. The interest of the appellant under the lease was “land “within the meaning of the Act. The appellant is not strictly a thikadar, but in any case thikadars are not excluded from the operation of Ch. VIIA. Sect. 3, sub-s. 10, of the Act of 1886 does not affect the rights of the proprietor under Ch. VIIA. No hardship is caused by the liability to enhancement. Under s. 52 of Act XVII. of 1876 there was a liability to resumption; the Act of 1901 took away that liability in certain cases, and substituted for it the liability to enhancement of the rent. De Gruyther, K.C., in reply. If for the purpose of the Act the appellant is to be treated as a tenant, she cannot recover under the tikait, Ch. VILA does not apply to the circumstances of this case, possibly by an oversight. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by SIR JOHN EDGE. De Gruyther, K.C., in reply. If for the purpose of the Act the appellant is to be treated as a tenant, she cannot recover under the tikait, Ch. VILA does not apply to the circumstances of this case, possibly by an oversight. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by SIR JOHN EDGE. This is an appeal from a decree, dated April 2, 1915, of the Board of Revenue for the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, which set aside a decree, dated October 7, 1914, of the Court of the Commissioner of Lucknow, and restored a decree or order, dated June 4, 1914, of the Court of the Deputy-Commissioner of Sitapur. The suit in which this appeal has been brought was instituted in a Court of Revenue, which alone had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, a civil Court having no jurisdiction in the matter. In the suit the plaintiffs claimed a decree for the possession of the entire village mauza Bandhia Kalan, situate in pargana Nighasan, in the district of Kheri, by resumption of the Muafi, and in the alternative that the rent might be fixed at a proper amount under s. 1076 of Act XXII. of 1886 (the Oudh Rent Act, 1886), and other relief’s which need not be referred to. The Deputy-Commissioner of Sitapur, before whom the suit came for trial, did not grant a decree for resumption, but having found that the rent was liable to be enhanced under s. 1076 of Act XXII. of 1886, by his decree declared that the defendant was a tenant of the mauza without any right of occupancy, and determined the rent to be payable at Rs.2000 per annum. The only question to be considered in this appeal is whether the rent at which the mauza was held by the defendant of the plaintiffs at the date of suit was or was not liable to be enhanced, and that question depends upon the nature of the lease under which the mauza was held by the defendant. Mauza Bandhia Kalan is part of the taluqdari estate of Majhgain. On November 13, 1882, Raji Milap Singh, in whom was then vested that estate, by his will devised mauza Bandhia Kalan to his wife Rani Dhan Kunwar, who on his death obtained possession of the mauza. Mauza Bandhia Kalan is part of the taluqdari estate of Majhgain. On November 13, 1882, Raji Milap Singh, in whom was then vested that estate, by his will devised mauza Bandhia Kalan to his wife Rani Dhan Kunwar, who on his death obtained possession of the mauza. Thereafter Rani Dhan Kunwar, in order to provide maintenance for her daughter, who is the defendant in this suit and the appellant in this appeal, and maintenance for that daughters son, executed on February 23, 1891, the following lease " Lease in favour of Chhoti Betia, i.e., Parbati, who is married at Malanpur, and also in favour of the grandson, i.e., the dear son of the said daughter, granted by Rani Dhan Kunwar, talukdar of Majhgain and Bhur, pargana Nighasan. Mauza Bandhia Kalan, pargana and tahsil Nighasan (hadbast No. 61) owned and possessed by me, the executant, the revenue of which, along with that of the entire taluka, is paid to Government, is leased to you from 1297 Fasli up to the term of your life and that of your dear son, at a jama of Rs.584 per annum. You should take possession of the said mauza from 1297 Fasli as a lessee for life and bring into your own use all sorts of receipts which include mal and siwai and pay to me Rs.584 annual lease money, instalment by instalment, year by year, without objection, and all sorts of profits will belong to you and your dear son during your respective lives, and after you. and your dear son the lease of the mauza will end and it will, as before, revert to the possession of the holder of the ilaka. During your life and that of your dear son neither I nor any heir or representative of mine will have power to set aside the lease. If you do not pay the jama reserved by the lease at the proper time, it will be duly recovered from you without interest by means of a suit in Court. You should, during the period of your lease, fully carry out all orders issued by the authorities in respect of the village, so that no stigma of disobedience of orders might attach to you or to the taluka. You should keep the tenantry satisfied in every way, so that the population of the village might increase and the village might not become desolate. You should keep the tenantry satisfied in every way, so that the population of the village might increase and the village might not become desolate. Under proper circumstances you are also authorized to eject the tenants, so that you might eject them after issuing notice of ejectment. You should, however, see that they are not oppressed. You are authorized to enhance or reduce the rent of the tenants so far as it is just. You should carry on all the affairs of the village just as they have been hitherto conducted. These few presents have, therefore, been executed by way of a lease to stand as evidence." [The boundaries of the land were then stated.] Under that lease the defendant became the thikadar or person to whom the collection of rents in the mauza had been leased by Rani Dhan Kunwar, who was then the landlord. Rani Dhan Kunwar died in 1891. After her death the taluqa vested in Raghubar Singh, a plaintiif and one of the respondents, and in Raj Mangal Singh, represented in this suit and appeal by the Deputy-Commissioner of Kheri as the special manager of the Court of Wards of the estate of Majhgain. Land forming a mahal or part of a mahal which is under Ch. VILA of Act XXII. of 1886 liable to be resumed by the proprietor or to have the rent payable in respect of it enhanced must be land held rent free or at a favourable rate of rent. By s. 1071 of the Act it is enacted that " For the purposes of this Chapter " (Ch. VILA) " a grant of land at a favourable rate of rent means a grant of land at a rent less than the aggregate of the revenue and local rates payable thereon." All three Courts in India have found that the rent of Rs.584, which was made payable by the lease of February 23, 1891, was a favourable rate of rent within the meaning of Ch. VILA. But it has been contended on behalf of the appellant that Ch. VII. A does not apply to persons holding land as thikadars. VILA. But it has been contended on behalf of the appellant that Ch. VII. A does not apply to persons holding land as thikadars. That contention is based on s. 3, sub-s. 10, of the Act, according to which a " tenant means any person, not being an under-proprietor, who is liable to pay rent; and in the following portions of this Act, namely, sections, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 29, 53, 54, 55, sub-sections (1.) and (2.), 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 108, 126, and 138, but in no others, the expression tenant • shall be held to include a thikadar or person to whom the collection of rents in a village, or portion of a village has been leased by the landlord/ Sect. 3, sub-s. 10, which contains that definition, was part of Act XXII. of 1886 as it was passed in 1886. Ch. VILA, which deals with the resumption and the enhancement of the rent of land held rent free or at a favourable rate of rent and contains s. 107A to s. 107K, was added to Act XXII. of 1886 in 1901 by an amending Act, U. P. Act IV. of 1901, and consequently the specific enactments of Ch. VILA are not limited in their application by s. 3, sub-s. 10, which must be regarded as a mere glossary defining the terms " tenant" and " thikadar " as those terms are employed in the Act XXII. of 1886 as it stood in 1886 when it was passed. The object of enacting Ch. VILA which the Government of India had in view obviously was the protection of the Government revenue assessed upon agricultural lands, and as far as possible to maintain proprietors of lands in a position to enable them to pay the Government revenue and the local rates assessed upon their lands and thus to avoid losing their lands by making default in payment of the revenue due to the State. In some parts of India, in Oudh for instance, many proprietors of lands were in the habit of acting improvidently in making grants of lands, by lease or otherwise, rent free or at rents which did not enable them to pay the public revenue and local rates assessed upon their lands. As early as 1793 the Governor General in Council passed Regulation XIX. As early as 1793 the Governor General in Council passed Regulation XIX. of 1793, with a similar object of protecting the Government revenue derivable from lands. In s. 1 of that regulation it is stated " By the ancient law of the country, the ruling power is entitled to a certain proportion of the produce of every bigha of land (demandable in money or kind, according to local custom) unless it transfers its right thereto for a term or in perpetuity, or limits the public demand upon the whole of the lands belonging to an individual, leaving him to appropriate to his own use the difference between the value of such proportion of the produce and the sum payable to the public, whilst he continues to discharge the latter. As a necessary consequence of this law, if a zamindar made a grant of any part of his lands to be held exempt from payment of revenue, it was considered void from being an alienation of the dues of Government without its sanction. Had the validity of such grants been admitted, it is obvious that the revenue of Government would have been liable to gradual diminution." That regulation was applied to Oudh after the annexation of that province. By s. 52 of Act XVII. of 1876 (the Oudh Land Revenue Act, 1876), it was enacted " All grants (whether in writing or otherwise) by proprietors, or the persons whom they represent, of land to be held exempt from the payment of rent or at a favourable rate of rent, are hereby declared to be liable to resumption, unless such grants have been sanctioned or confirmed by the Governor-General in Council or the Chief Commissioner. Provided that, if such grants are held under a written instrument (whether executed before or after the passing of this Act) by which the grantor expressly agrees that the grant shall not be resumed, they shall be held valid against him (but not as against his representatives after his death) during the continuance of the settlement of the district in which the land is situate which was current at the date of the grant." Sect. 52 was subject to the procedure and exemptions contained in ss. 53, 54, and 55 of that Act. Sect. 52 of Act XVII. 52 was subject to the procedure and exemptions contained in ss. 53, 54, and 55 of that Act. Sect. 52 of Act XVII. of 1876 was wide enough to apply to grants to thikadars of land in Oudh exempt from the payment of rent or held at a favourable rate of rent, and it authorized the resumption of such grants when they had not been sanctioned or confirmed by the Governor-General in Council or the Chief Commissioner of Oudh. Sects. 52, 53, 54 and 55 of Act XVII. of 1876 continued in force until Act IV. of 1901 was passed. By s. 107E, which by Act IV. of 1901 was added to Act XXII. of 1886, it was enacted as follows " Land held rent free or at a favourable rate shall be liable to resumption, only when by the terms of the grant or by local custom it is held—(a) At the pleasure of the grantor ; (b) For the performance of specific service, religious or secular, which the proprietor no longer requires (c) Conditionally or for a term, and the conditions are broken or the term expires . . . ." That section limited the lands which might otherwise have been resumed if s. 52 of Act XVII. of 1876 had remained in force, and in that respect was more favourable to the grantees of such lands than s. 52 of Act XVII. of 1876 had been. By s. 107A, which was one of the sections which were added to Act XXII. of 1886, the proprietor of a mahal or part of a mahal was, amongst other rights of suit, given a right to sue to enhance the rent of any land held at a favourable rate of rent, whether so held by grant in writing or otherwise. And by s. 107B all land in Oudh held at a favourable rate of rent was made liable to enhancement of rent unless the holder establishes certain specified facts, which have not been established in this case. And by s. 107B all land in Oudh held at a favourable rate of rent was made liable to enhancement of rent unless the holder establishes certain specified facts, which have not been established in this case. That section is subject to the following proviso " Provided that no land held under a written instrument, whether executed before or after the 1st day of January, 1902, by which the grantor expressly agrees that the grant shall not be resumed, shall be liable to resumption or assessment or enhancement of rent until the grantor dies, or the term of the current settlement of the local area in which the grant is situated expires, whichever event first occurs." In the present case not only did the grantor of the lease die before suit, but the term of the settlement current at the date of the lease of the local area in which mauza Bandhia Kalan is situate expired before the suit was brought. By 8. 1070, which is one of the sections which in 1901 were added to Act XXII. of 1886, it is enacted as follows " Land not liable to resumption under section 107E and to which the provisions of section 107H do not apply shall be liable to assessment or enhancement of rent as the case may be. (2.) When a grant held rent free or at a favourable rate is found to be liable to have rent assessed or enhanced thereon, the grantee shall be deemed to be a tenant without a right of occupancy under sections 36 and 37 of this Act, and the rent shall be determined at such rate as the Court may con sider fair and equitable, having regard to the rents paid for land of similar quality and with similar advantages in the neighbourhood. (3.) The period of seven years for which he (the grantee) shall be entitled to retain the holding shall begin from the first day of July next following the date of the institution of the suit." Mauza Bandhia Kalan was not liable to resumption under s. 107E, as the term for which the lease was granted has not expired, and it is not proved that any condition contained in the lease has been broken. The provisions of s. 107H do not apply in this case, and consequently s. 1076 does apply, as the lease of February 23, 1891, was a grant of land at a favourable rate of rent, and mauza Bandhia Kalan was land held by the defendant at a favourable rate of rent within the meaning of Ch. VILA of Act XXII. of 1886. The decree of the Board of Revenue which set aside the decree of the Commissioner of Lucknow and restored the decree or order of the Deputy-Commissioner of Sitapur enhancing the rent to Rs.2000 per annum was right. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the decree of the Board of Revenue should be affirmed, and that this appeal should be dismissed with costs.