JUDGMENT Mookerjee, J. - The only substantial question argued in this appeal is, whether the Subordinate Judge has rightly dismissed the claim for the increased rent of Rs. 2-5-6 gds, claimed by the plaintiff in addition to the pre-existing rent of Rs. 18-11-12 gds. It is conceded that the rent was not enhanced by writing registered as required by clause (a) of S. 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Consequently, the plaintiffs are driven to rely upon the first clause to the proviso which runs as follows: "Nothing in clause (a) shall prevent a landlord from recovering rent at the rate at which it has been actually paid for a continuous period of not less than three years immediately preceding the period for which the rent is clarified." This proviso however is of no assistance to the plaintiffs. The first of the four years for which rent is claimed in this suit is 132. To entitle them to the benefit of the provisions contained in the proviso the plaintiffs must establish that the increased rent which they now claim has been actually paid for a continuous period of not less than three years immediately preceding 1321. But it is not disputed that the increased rent was not paid in 1320. The plaintiffs contend, however, that as rent at the increased rate was actually paid from 1314 to 1319, the requirements of the proviso have been fulfilled. We are of opinion that there is no foundation for this contention, which is opposed to the plain language of the statute. The argument of the appellants is based upon the fallacy that if rent has been paid at the increased rate for three years or longer, the rent of the holding has become permanently increased, as if there had been an increase by writing registered. That is not the effect of the proviso. The true effect of section 23 is that there is no permanent enhancement when there is an attempt to increase rent without writing registered. But still the legislature allows the landlord to realise rent at the increased rate, provided rent at the rate has been actually paid for a continuous period of not less than three years immediately preceding the period for which rent is claimed. If the landlords do not bring themselves within the precise language of this clause, they are not entitled to the benefit. If the landlords do not bring themselves within the precise language of this clause, they are not entitled to the benefit. In the Court below, reliance was placed by way of analogy upon section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act; but as the Subordinate Judge correctly pointed out whereas section 50 contemplates a case where a Tenancy has been held at a certain rate, Mohini v. Preo 1922 Cal. 141 - 49 Cal. 49 661 - 35 C.L.J. 309 - 67 I.C. 381 section 29 applies only to a case where rent has been actually paid for a period of three years. We are of opinion that the claim for enhanced rent has been rightly disallowed. 2. The result is that the decree of the Subordinate Judge is affirmed and this appeal dismissed with costs.