JUDGMENT Biswas, J. - The substantial question raised in this appeal is one as to the correct interpretation of the expression ?prevailing rate ? as used in sec. 30, cl. (a) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. This appeal was once heard by my learned brother Mr. Justice Jack, but that was an exparte hearing, the Respondents not being present. The learned Judge on that occasion allowed the appeal and restored the judgment of the learned Munsif. An application for re-hearing was since made on behalf of the Respondents, and this was allowed. That is how the matter comes before me again. The appeal has been argued very fully by both sides, and I confess the matter is not altogether free from difficulty. The Plaintiff-landlord sued for enhancement of rent, basing his claim both on cl. (a) and cl. (6) of sec. 30. The existing jama was Rs. 340 yearly for an area of 170 bighas scattered over three different mouzas--Bhetkhali, Romjannagore and Harinagore. The lands appertaining to the jama, lying in these three villages, were recorded in three separate khatians in the settlement proceedings, but it is now common ground that they constitute a single jama and not three separate jamas as the record-of-rights, might suggest. The existing rate of rent works out at an average of Rs. 2 per bigha. The enhanced rent claimed under cl. (a) of sec. 30 was Rs. 2-12 per bigha, while the enhancement under cl. (6) was claimed at the rate of four annas in the rupee. The learned Munsif found that so far as mouza Romjannagore was concerned, the majority of tenants in that mouza paid rent at Rs. 2 or at less than that rate, and in that view held that a ?prevailing rate? higher than the existing rate had not been established. The claim to enhancement under cl. (a) of sec. 30 was, therefore, disallowed. As regards the other two mouzas, his finding was that the prevailing rate in mouza Bhetkhali had been proved to be Rs. 2-8 per bigha and that in mouza Harinagore Rs. 2-4 per bigha, and he made a decree in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of these two mouzas on that basis. As regards the claim to enhancement under cl. (6) of sec. 30, he allowed it at the rate of one anna in the rupee in respect of all the three mouzas. 2. 2-4 per bigha, and he made a decree in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of these two mouzas on that basis. As regards the claim to enhancement under cl. (6) of sec. 30, he allowed it at the rate of one anna in the rupee in respect of all the three mouzas. 2. The Defendants appealed to the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge held that the Plaintiff bad failed to establish the prevailing rate in any of the three mouzas, and accordingly held that the Plaintiff was not entitled to any enhancement under cl. (a) of see 30. Although in their memorandum of appeal in the lower Appellate Court the Defendants also specifically questioned the enhancement under cl. (b,) it does not appear from the judgment of the learned District Judge that this point was actually argued at the hearing, and the finding of the learned Munsif in this respect stands unreversed. All the same, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal in full and dismissed the claim for enhancement altogether. In the present appeal before this Court, the Plaintiff has raised both the points. As already stated, my learned brother Mr. Justice Jack accepted the Plaintiff's contentions on either head and restored the decree of the Munsif. So far as the claim under cl. (b) of sec. 30 is concerned, 1 feel no hesitation in accepting the view which had found favour with Mr. Justice Jack. It is more than likely that the Defendants did not press this point before the lower Appellate Court. In any case, the lower Appellate Court was not justified, without reversing the finding of the learned Munsif, in dismissing the claim under this head. 3. It is the other part of the case arising under cl. (a) of sec. 30 which presents greater difficulty. It appears that for the purpose of ascertaining the prevailing rate, the learned Munsif directed a local inquiry in accordance with cl. (b) of sec. 31, and the report of the Revenue Officer who made the inquiry is on the record. As already stated, we are concerned in this appeal only with mouzas Bhetkhali and Harinagore, the claim in respect of the other mouza having been negatived by both the Courts and there being no appeal in respect thereof. (b) of sec. 31, and the report of the Revenue Officer who made the inquiry is on the record. As already stated, we are concerned in this appeal only with mouzas Bhetkhali and Harinagore, the claim in respect of the other mouza having been negatived by both the Courts and there being no appeal in respect thereof. Both sides accept the position regarding the rates of rent generally paid in the two mouzas for lands of a similar description and with similar advantages as set out in the report of the Revenue Officer. 4. The figures for mouza Bhetkhali stand thus:-- Mouza Bhetkhali : Total number of holdings--43. 16 holdings, @ Rs. 8/8/- per bigha. 6 @ Rs. 2/9/- 3 @ Rs. 2/10/- 9 @ Rs. 2/12/- 1 holding, @ Rs. 2/14/- 6 holdings, @ Rs. 3/- 1 holding, @ Rs. 3/2/- 1 holding, @ Rs 3/5/- As regards Harinagore, leaving out holdings paying less than Rs. 2 per bigha, the figures stand as follows:-- Mouza Harinagore -- Total number of holdings?79 4 holdings, @ Rs. 2/- per bigha 1 holding, @ Rs. 2/1/- 3 holdings, @ Rs. 2/2/- 1 holding, @ Rs. 2/3/- 4 holdings, @ Rs. 2/4/- 3 @ Rs. 2/5/- 4 @ Rs. 2/6- 2 @ Rs. 2/7/- 6 @ Rs, 2/8/- 3 @ Rs. 2/9/- 4 @ Rs. 2/10/- 1 holding, @ Rs. 2/11/- 6 holdings, @ Rs. 2/12/- 1 holding. @ Rs. 2/13/- 4 holdings, @ Rs. 2/14/- 1 holding, @ Rs. 2/15/- 4 holdings, @ Rs. 3/- 5. It will be seen that in neither mouza was there a clear majority of raiyats paying one single uniform rate, although there was a majority paying a certain rate and rates higher than that. The learned District Judge took the view that ? prevailing rate ? means a single common rate which a very large number of tenants, at least not less than half, pay, and that if there are varying rates and not one common rate paid by a large number of tenants, prevailing rate is not established. The question is whether this was the right interpretation of the words ? prevailing rate ? as used in sec. 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. 6. The question is whether this was the right interpretation of the words ? prevailing rate ? as used in sec. 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. 6. Quite a large number of decisions have been cited on either side beginning with Pelaram v. Nund Kumar 6 W.R. Act X Rulings, p. 45 (1866) and ending with the latest decision of this Court in Saroj Kumar v. Alek Sheikh 62 C.L.J. 312 (1935). Reference to most of these cases will be found in any annotated edition of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The decisions do not all speak with a certain sound. So far as the cases in the Weekly Reporters are concerned, they are based on the words of the corresponding section either in Act X of 1859 or in Bengal Act VIII of 1869. Sec. 17 of the former Act, which is the same as sec. 18 of the latter, is expressed in these terms (quoting only the relevant portions) :-- No ryot having a right of occupancy shall be liable to an enhancement of the rent previously paid by him, except on some one of the following grounds, namely :- That the rate of rent paid by such ryot is below the prevailing rate payable by the same class of ryots for land of a similar description and with similar advantages in the places adjacent. 7. Sec. 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act stands thus:- The landlord of a holding held at a money rent by an occupancy raiyat may, subject to the provisions of this Act, institute a suit to enhance the rent on one or more of the following grounds, (namely):-- (a) that the rate of rent paid by the raiyat is below the prevailing rate paid by occupancy raiyats for land of a similar description and with similar advantages in the same village or in neighboring villages, and that there is no sufficient reason for his holding at so low a rate; 8. The words ? or in neighbouring villages? were introduced into the Bengal Tenancy Act by an amendment of 3898. In the Bengal Tenancy Act a new section has been added, which had no counterpart in the earlier enactments, viz, sec. 31, which lays down certain rules as to how the prevailing rate is to be determined. Cl. The words ? or in neighbouring villages? were introduced into the Bengal Tenancy Act by an amendment of 3898. In the Bengal Tenancy Act a new section has been added, which had no counterpart in the earlier enactments, viz, sec. 31, which lays down certain rules as to how the prevailing rate is to be determined. Cl. (a) of this section is important, and runs in these terms:-- In determining what is the prevailing rate the Court shall have regard to the rates generally paid daring a period of not less than three years before the institution of the suit, and shall not decree an enhancement unless there is a substantial difference between the rate paid by the raiyat and the prevailing rate found by the Court. 9. It is important also to notice, in this connection, a limitation which is imposed by a subsequent section, namely, sec. 35, which provides that notwithstanding anything in secs. 30 to 34, the Court shall not in any case decree any enhancement which is under the circumstances of the case unfair or inequitable. 10. Putting aside decided cases for the moment and looking at the language used in the Bengal Tenancy Act, it appears that what the Act contemplates is not a multiplicity of prevailing rates in any given case, but one prevailing rate. The use of the definite article in cl. (a) of sec. 30 is significant. The ground on which enhancement is allowed is that the rate of rent actually paid by the tenant Defendant who is sued is below the prevailing rate paid by occupancy raiyats for land of a similar description and with similar advantages in the village or in neighbouring villages. 11. This is not, however, to say that the prevailing rate may not be found and expressed to be a rate varying within certain limits. If cl. (a) of sec. 31 is referred to, it will be seen that what the Court is required to do is to ascertain the prevailing rate, and for this purpose the Court is to have regard to the rates generally paid. In other words, it means that the Court must find the actual rates which are generally paid by occupancy-raiyats in the neighborhood, and having done that, is to find out whether there is a prevailing rate. In other words, it means that the Court must find the actual rates which are generally paid by occupancy-raiyats in the neighborhood, and having done that, is to find out whether there is a prevailing rate. The prevailing rate is to be determined as a question of fact, and not to be deduced inferentially from the actual rates which may be found to be in force in the locality concerned. To put the matter in a different way, it seems to me on a plain reading of the relevant sections that the prevailing rate is not to be confounded with a fair and equitable rent. In assessing a fair and equitable rent, the Court may doubtless have regard to actual rents, but then it determines for itself what in its opinion should be the proper rent payable. In the case of prevailing rate, however, as I understand the matter, it is and should be no part of the business of the Court to determine what should be the prevailing rate, but it is merely to ascertain what is the prevailing rate in the area concerned. The distinction is a real one, because it does limit to a large extent the discretion of the Court in so far as the question of ascertainment of prevailing rate is concerned. As I have already pointed out, there was no provision corresponding to sec. 31 in the earlier enactments, and the language of the section which corresponded to cl. (ft) of sec. 30 was also different. In referring to the prevailing rate, the earlier enactments speak of ?the prevailing rate payable by the same class of raiyats for land, etc.,? whereas the Bengal Tenancy Act speaks of ? the prevailing rate paid by occupancy-raiyats, etc.? Having regard to the words used in Act X of 1859 or in Act VIII of 1869, it is not difficult to understand why--as some of the reported cases in the Weekly Reporters show --the Court was led to consider what was the fair or equitable rent payable, in determining whether or not the rate of rent paid by the Defendant raiyat was below the prevailing rate. It seems to me that no such latitude is permissible to the Court under the present Act in coming to a finding regarding the prevailing rate. It seems to me that no such latitude is permissible to the Court under the present Act in coming to a finding regarding the prevailing rate. It is only after the prevailing rate has been ascertained as a fact that the Court is at liberty to consider whether that rate represents a fair and equitable rate, and this is by reason of sec. 35 only, because that section, as already stated, lays down that in no case shall the Court decree any enhancement that is under the circumstances of the case unfair or inequitable. But sec. 35 comes into play only after the prevailing rate has been ascertained, and is not to operate at all in the process of arriving at the prevailing rate. Cl. (a) of sec. 31 no doubt uses the word ?determining? in the opening part of it, which might suggest that the Court has got to do something more than merely to ascertain an existing fact, but it will be seen that the word ?determine? has been used as interchangeable with the word ? ascertain? or ?find.? Reading cl. (a) as a whole, and reading the section as a whole, with all its clauses, it seems to me clear that the word ? determining ? cannot be given any other meaning than ?ascertaining as a fact.? 12. In many instances the prevailing rate will no doubt be one single rate, but not necessarily so. The expression ? prevailing rate? means, in my opinion, no more and no less than a rate actually prevailing, not a rate which ought to prevail. Such a rate, that is, a rate generally prevalent in the locality, may not, however, be ascertainable in every case as an exact mathematical figure: but only the limits within which it varies may be ascertained. Taking the particular case in hand, for instance, all that it may be possible to find is not that the prevailing rate in mouza Bhetkhali is Rs. 2-8 or Rs. 2-12, but a rate varying between Rs. 2-8 on the one hand and Rs. 2-9 or Rs. 2-10 or Rs. 2-12 on the other. Prevailing rate conveys more or less the idea of a standard rate or scheduled rate, but a standard rate or scheduled rate need not be an absolutely fixed figure in all cases. 2-8 or Rs. 2-12, but a rate varying between Rs. 2-8 on the one hand and Rs. 2-9 or Rs. 2-10 or Rs. 2-12 on the other. Prevailing rate conveys more or less the idea of a standard rate or scheduled rate, but a standard rate or scheduled rate need not be an absolutely fixed figure in all cases. A rate may vary within narrow limits and yet be taken as a standard rate. So may it be in the case of a prevailing rate. This is not quite the same as saying that there are different prevailing rates. In other words, the different rates within the range of variation will not represent distinct prevailing rates. All that is meant is that in a particular case the prevailing rate cannot be expressed in terms of one definite arithmetical figure all the same it may be possible to predicate with sufficient certainty the limits within which it varies. As to whether the rate may be so expressed or what the limits of variation should be, must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule as to that. It will depend not merely on the extent of the actual variations, but also on the number of cases which show such variations or the extent of the areas which may be involved. If the variations are sufficiently large or sufficient by numerous to suggest a number of distinct rates, rather than point to a rate fluctuating within certain defined limits, constituting, so to speak, a common group, there will be obviously no room for application of any such standard for ascertainment of the prevailing rate. 13. If we adopt this interpretation, it seems to me to be possible to reconcile most of the decisions which have been cited on one side or the other. There is one thing clear, and that is that there is no room for the striking of an average of the actual rates paid in the village or in neighbouring villages. Not only will that produce a notional prevailing rate, if I may use that expression, as distinct from an actual prevailing rate, but it may lead to anomalous results, as has been pointed out in some of the cases. Not only will that produce a notional prevailing rate, if I may use that expression, as distinct from an actual prevailing rate, but it may lead to anomalous results, as has been pointed out in some of the cases. If the idea of an average is discarded, must we equally discard the view which is put forward on behalf of the Appellant that where there are different rates of rent prevalent, that one among such rates which is the minimum at which and at rates higher than which the majority of raiyats pay may be regarded as the prevailing rate. The objection to this is that this would not be quite an accurate statement of the actual position: it would really assume a number of distinct prevailing rates, and not one prevailing rate as the Act requires. In a case where the prevailing rate varies within limits, it may no doubt be a convenient working basis to accept the lower limit rather than try to arrive at an exact figure within the permissible range of variation, but it will still be on the basis of there being one prevailing rate, and not a number of prevailing rates, each variation representing one such distinct rate. 14. Then, there is the question, in how many instances the rate must be shown to prevail in order that it may be established as the prevailing rate. Will it do to show that the rate is paid by a sufficiently large number of raiyats, or is it necessary to prove payment by a majority of raiyats, and if so, whether it is to be a bare majority or an overwhelming majority? The language of the Act throws no certain light on this point except that cl. (a) of sec. 31 speaks of ?rates generally paid.? There is no reference to a numerical majority of raiyats. Whether the words ?rates generally paid ? do or do not imply a majority is not quite clear, but where there is a majority, there can hardly be any doubt that it will satisfy the requirements of the section. In fact, the majority test has been more or less accepted as the workable test in the decisions. The area test has been substituted for the numerical test by an express amendment of the Act which was introduced in 1898, in the shape of sec. In fact, the majority test has been more or less accepted as the workable test in the decisions. The area test has been substituted for the numerical test by an express amendment of the Act which was introduced in 1898, in the shape of sec. 31A, but as that section shows, it will apply only to areas to which it is extended by the Local Government by notification; otherwise where there is no such notification, it seems to me to be a fair rule to adopt, in order to ascertain the prevailing rate, to consider whether or not it is the rate, or substantially the rate, paid by the majority of the raiyats in the locality. 15. I do not think any useful purpose will be served by referring in detail to the reported cases. Suffice it to say that they exhibit a divergence of view, but if the prevailing rate is understood in the way I have suggested, it may perhaps reduce this divergence to a minimum. 17. It remains now to apply the interpretation of the words ?prevailing rate ? I have indicated, to the facts of this case. Taking mouza Bhetkhali first, the learned Munsif granted enhancement at the rate of Rs. 2-8 per bigha, which he held, was the prevailing rate. This rate is actually paid in respect of 16 holdings out of 48. If you add to the number, another 6 holdings which pay at the rate of Rs. 2-9 you get an absolute majority of holdings paying either Rs. 2-8 or a rate very near it. The variation between Rs. 2-8 and Rs. 2-9 is not so large that you must say that they represent two distinct prevailing rates, and not that the prevailing rate varies between these limits. In my opinion, a rate of Rs. 2-9 may be accepted as quite good evidence for establishing Rs. 2-8 as the prevailing rate. In that view, I accept the finding of the learned Munsif that Rs. 2-8 is the prevailing rate in mouza Bhetkhali. 18. As regards the other mouza Harinagore, which consists of 79 holdings, it will be seen that at least 40 are required to constitute a majority, and in this case the learned Munsif, as already stated, granted enhancement at the rate of Rs. 2-4 per bigha. 2-8 is the prevailing rate in mouza Bhetkhali. 18. As regards the other mouza Harinagore, which consists of 79 holdings, it will be seen that at least 40 are required to constitute a majority, and in this case the learned Munsif, as already stated, granted enhancement at the rate of Rs. 2-4 per bigha. But you do not get an absolute majority to support this as the prevailing rate, unless in making the computation you go so far down the scale as raiyats paying Rs. 2-15. I am not prepared to say, however, having regard to the range of variations of rent in this mouza, that the gap between Rs, 2-4 and Rs. 2-15 is so insignificant that it may be ignored, nor that the number of raiyats paying Rs. 2-15 or rates near about that is such, that they may be classed together as one group paying more or less a similar rate. In fact, the number of tenants paying these higher rates is very small, only one pays Rs. 2-15, one Rs. 2-13 and four Rs. 2-14. My conclusion, therefore, is that in respect of mouza Harinagore, the Plaintiff has failed to establish a prevailing rate at any figure above that which is being paid by the tenants at the present moment. 19. The result is that the appeal is allowed in part. The claim to enhancement under cl. (a) of sec. 30 is allowed in respect of mouza Bhetkhali, but dismissed in respect of mouza Harinagore. As regards mouza Romjannagore, the judgments of both the Courts below dismissing the claim will, of course, stand. As regards the enhancement under cl. (6) of sec. 30, it will be decreed at the rate of one anna in the rupee, as allowed by the learned Munsif, and the decree of the learned Munsif in this respect will accordingly be restored. This enhancement will be calculated in the case of mouza Bhetkhali on the rent as enhanced under cl. (a). The parties will bear their own costs in all Courts. Both sides have applied for leave to appeal under cl. 15 of the Letters Patent. As the matter is important, and as it is desirable that all ambiguity in the application of cl. (a) of sec. 30 should be removed by an authoritative decision of this Court, I grant the leave asked for.