JUDGMENT G.N. Das, J. - This appeal is on behalf of the Plaintiff in a suit for recovery of rent for the years 1347 to 1348 B. S. The claim for rent was made up of a sum of Rs. 95-14-6, being the previous rent, and a sum of Rs. 136-9 being a claim for additional rent for additional area. This claim for additional rent was made on the basis of a contract dated the 28th of May, 1906, executed between the Plaintiff's predecessor and the Defendants' predecessor. The contract provided that the tenants were, in possession of an area of 93 bighas by guess at a rent of Re. 1-0-6 pies per bigha according to the standard measure of 80 cubits, each cubit being 18", and that in case of a future measurement being made, if the tenant is found to be in possession of an excess area, the tenant would be liable to pay rent for the excess area at the aforesaid rate of Re. 1-0-6 pies per bigha according to the standard measure of 80 cubits, each cubit being of 18". During the Cadastral Survey operations the Defendants were found to be in possession of an area of 7551 acres, which on calculation according to the standard mentioned in the contract came up to 225 bighas 7 katas 14 chataks. There was, therefore, an excess of 132 bighas 7 katas and 14 chataks, and the additional rent, at the rate of Re. 1-0-6 pies per bigha came up to Rs. 136-9. The suit was contested by Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 on the ground that there was no increase in area and that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the additional rent claimed. The trial Court decreed the suit overruling the defence. On an appeal being taken, the lower Appellate Court has overruled the grounds raised in the written statement. The lower Appellate Court, however, has decreed the suit at the old rate of Rs. 95-14-6 pies per annum and has disallowed the claim for additional rent for additional area on a new ground taken in the lower Appellate Court that this claim is hit by sec. 75A of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Plaintiff has accordingly preferred this appeal. Mr. 95-14-6 pies per annum and has disallowed the claim for additional rent for additional area on a new ground taken in the lower Appellate Court that this claim is hit by sec. 75A of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Plaintiff has accordingly preferred this appeal. Mr. Chakravarty appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff contends that sec 75A of the Bengal Tenancy Act has no application to the facts of the present case and as such the Plaintiff is entitled to the claim made in the suit. See. 75A was added by Bengal Act VI of 1938 which came into operation on the 18th of August, 1938. Sec. 75A (1) lays down that all the provisions relating to enhancement, of rent contained in the Bengal Tenancy Act shall remain suspended for ten years from the 27th of August, 1937; sub-sec. (2) renders decrees passed after 27th August, 1937, enhancing the rent void; sub-sec. (3), with which we are concerned, proceeds to say that any provision in any contract providing for enhancement of rent shall be inoperative for a period of ten years from the 27th of August, 1937. The question is whether sub-sec. (5) makes recovery of additional rent for additional area on the strength of a covenant in a contract dated before the passing of the amending Act inoperative for ten years with effect from 27th of August, 1937. A reference to the Act would indicate that the enhancement sections are contained in secs. 6 to 9 relating to tenures, sees. 27 to 37 relating to occupancy raiyats, sec. 43 relating to non occupancy raiyats. secs. 48A, 48B, 48D and 48G relating to under-raiyats. Sec. 52 of the Bengal Tenancy Act is said to be a provision for alteration of rent on alteration of area. It is apparent, therefore, that the Act makes a distinction between enhancement of rent and alteration of rent for alteration of area. This will also appear from sec. 188 (i), proviso (ii) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In case of additional rent for additional area the expression " enhancement of rent " is not, in my opinion, quite apposite. In a case of additional rent for additional area the additional rent is imposed upon the rent which was unassessed before that date. It is wholly a case of assessment on unassessed land. In the present case the position is much stronger. In a case of additional rent for additional area the additional rent is imposed upon the rent which was unassessed before that date. It is wholly a case of assessment on unassessed land. In the present case the position is much stronger. Additional rent is not claimed under any section of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In a case where the landlord proves, a contract providing for additional rent on re-measurement, he is entitled to such rent by virtue of his contract and not on the basis of any statutory provision. See Manindra Chandra Nandy v. Kaulet Shaikh I. L. R. (1923) Cal. 957 at 967. It is not, therefore, proper to say that the Plaintiff's claim is a claim which is based on any provision of the Act providing for enhancement of rent. The contention of Mr. Chakravarty must, therefore, be given effect to. 2. Mr. Ghose appearing, for the Respondents has referred to a decision in the case of Nagendra Chandra Lahiri v. Moulvi Md. Abdus Sobhan Saheb (1941) 45 C. W. N. 1001. That was a case where a question arose whether or not an assessment of rent under sec. 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act was hit by sec. 75A of the Bengal Tenancy Act. A reference to the judgment of Henderson, J., shows that it is not clear as to the precise ground on which the assessment was made in the proceedings under sec. 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. This case, therefore, in my opinion, does not throw any light on the question not in controversy. 3. The result, therefore, is that this appeal is allowed, the judgment and the decree of the lower Appellate Court are set aside and those of the first Court restored with costs in all the Courts. Leave to appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is prayed for and is granted.