This is a second appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordi­nate Judge, Cachar, dated 19th April 1945, by which he modified the judgment and decree of the Munsiff of Silchar, dated 6th June 1944 who had decreed the plaintiffs' suit for ejectment against the defendant with proportionate costs, reducing the amount of the yearly rent claimed, from Rs. 16 to Rs. 1-4 and directed that if the 3 years' rent in arrears amounting to Rs. 3-12-0, together with costs thereof, be paid into Court by the defen­dant within 30 days from the date of the decree, the decree for ejectment was not to be executed. The learned Munsiff also granted costs to the defendant on the balance of the amount claimed by the plaintiffs and in respect of which the-plaintiffs had failed. [2] Mr. Chaudhnri for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection as to the com. patence of the appeal in view of the provisions of 8. 103, Assam ( Temporarily Settled Districts Tenancy Act (Act III [3j of 1935). Section 103, Assam Tenancy Act (III [3] of 1935) lays down that "an appeal shall not lie from any decree or order passed, whether in the first instance or on appeal, is any suit instituted by a landlord for the recovery of rent where : (a) the decree or order is pissed by a District Judge, Additional Judge or Subordinate Judge, and the amount claimed in the suit does not exceed one hundred rupees, or (b) the decree or order is passed by any other judicial officer specially empowered by the Provincial Govern­ment to exercise final jurisdiction tinier this section, and the amount claimed in the suit does not exceed 50 rupees; unless in either case the decree or order has decided a question relating to the title to land or to some in­terest in land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto." [3] Mr. Chaudhnri has invited our attention to the prayer clause in the plaint which reads : "(i) Order may be passed directing the defendant to pay the sum of Bs. 48 being the rent for the years 1346 48 B S., at the rate of Kg. 16 perannum, together with the compilation of Rs. 12 in all, Rs. Chaudhnri has invited our attention to the prayer clause in the plaint which reads : "(i) Order may be passed directing the defendant to pay the sum of Bs. 48 being the rent for the years 1346 48 B S., at the rate of Kg. 16 perannum, together with the compilation of Rs. 12 in all, Rs. 60, with costs and future interest within the time stipulated by the Court, (ii) If the defendant does not pay up the dues of the plaintiff within the time fixed by the Court, order may be passed directing eviction of the defen­dant from and granting the plaintiff khas possession, in the lands mentioned in the schedule, under the provisions of S. 58, Tenancy Act, or a decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiff granting such relief in such form to which he may be deemed entitled, for occupation and enjoyment of the land mentioned in the schedule " [4] Mr. Chaudhuri for the respondent con-tends that having regard to the prayer clause, the suit must be regarded as one in respect of which a second appeal is barred by the provi­sions of S. 103, Assam Tenancy Act. We are unable to accept Mr. Chaudhuri's contention that the suit was one tor the recovery of rent only. In the prayer clause, there is a pointed reference to S. 58, Tenancy Act, which is in these terms : ''58. (1) When an arrear of rent remains due from a tenant not being a privileged raiyat or an occupancy raiyat, at the end of the agricultural year the landlord may, whether he has obtained a decree for the recovery of the arrear or not and whether be is entitled by the terms of any contract to eject the tenant for arrears or not institute a suit to eject the tenant. (2) In a suit for ejectment for an arrear of rent a decree passed in favour of the plaintiff shall specify the amount of the arrears and of the interest (if any) due thereon; and the decree shall not be executed if that amount and the coat of the suit are paid into Court within thirty days from the date of the decree or, if the Court is closed on the thirtieth day, on the day on which the Court re-opens. The Court may, for special reasons, extend the period •of thirty days mentioned in this section." [5] In the suit brought by the plaintiff, there was an allegation that arrear of rent was due from the defendant at the end of the agricultural year, and S. 58 (l), enables a person to whom .such arrear of rent is due, to institute a suit to .eject a tenant. It is true that in the first part of the prayer clause, the plaintiff claims only the arrear of rent, but reading the second part of the sprayer clause, with the first, we think the proper construction to be put on the plaint as a whole is that, in substance, the suit was one for ejectment. Indeed, the decision of the trial Court on issue 2. "la the suit maintainable in its present form?" tends to show that the question whether the suit was a suit for rent only or a suit for ejectment, was considered by the trial Court. It stated "This is a suit under 8. 58, Assam Tenancy Act which provides that a landlord may bring an ejectment suit against a non-occupancy tenant for non-payment of arrears of rent. It further provides that the amount of arrears found by the Court, if paid up within time fixed by the Court, the ejectment decree shall not be executed. This is a special procedure laid down in the Act for getting a decree for ejectment and a special privilege given to the landlords to recover the arrears of rent. This section doss not contemplate passing of a decree for rent. But the plaintiffs have claimed a decree for rent also, which, in my opinion, is not within the scope of this S. 58, Assam Tenancy Act. 'The plaintiffs have further claimed compensation which is not contemplated under S. 58. In these circumstances, I hold that the frame of the suit is defective, but it is maintainable so far as plaintiffs' claim for ejectment is concerned, and thus I decide this issue partly in favour of the plaintiffs". [6] It would appear that in the trial Court, the objection taken was not that it was not a suit for ejectment, but that a decree for rent in addition to a decree for ejectment under the provisions of 8. 58, Tenancy Act, was not permissible. [6] It would appear that in the trial Court, the objection taken was not that it was not a suit for ejectment, but that a decree for rent in addition to a decree for ejectment under the provisions of 8. 58, Tenancy Act, was not permissible. That this was the position taken by the defendant in the suit is also clear from the points for determination which the lower appellate Court framed in its judgment. Point No. 3 is in these terms "Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree for arrears of rent, as claimed?" It was on this issue that the lower appellate Court modified the decision of the trial Court. [7] Mr. Ghose for the appellants has contended that the lower appellate Court, in refusing to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants at the rate of Ks. 16, per annum as claimed by them apparently took the view that the Assam Tenancy Act of 1935, which was brought into force on lat ;March 1937, governed all leases, whether they were made before or after the Assam Tenancy Act came into force. It appears, however, that the lease in question had terminated at the expiry of the 1st year and that for the years 1346-48 B. S., the years for which arrears of rent are claimed the defendant was holding over within the meaning of S. 116, T. P. Act. Bat Mr. Ghose contends that the renewal of the lease within the meaning of S. 116, T. P. Act amounts to a con­tinuation of the original lease on the original terms. We think this contention is based upon an erroneous interpretation of S. 116, T. P. Act. In the case of holding over at the determination of a tenancy, it is the acceptance of rent or the express or implied assent of the landlord to the occupation of the tenant after the determination of the lease that has the effect of renewing the lease and not continuing the original lease. At the date of the renewal of the lease within the mean­ing of S. 116. T. P. Act, it is not disputed that the Assam Tenancy Act was in force. At the date of the renewal of the lease within the mean­ing of S. 116. T. P. Act, it is not disputed that the Assam Tenancy Act was in force. The pro­visions of S. 44, read with S. 3 (17), Assam Tenancy Act, were then clearly attracted, and the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover, by way of rent, anything more than 5 times the annual revenue, less the deductions allowed by the Government. The rent, calculated on this basis, works out to R9.1/4 per annum per bigha, and Bs. 3/12 for three bighas, the area involved in the suit. [8] Mr. Ghose next referred to sub-a. 13 (a) of s. 3, Tenancy Act, which defines 'revenue rate' as meaning "in respect of every parcel of land in an estate settled temporarily at full rates, the rate at which revenue is for the year actually payable to Government upon that parcel of land", and contended that there was no evidence to prove what the full rates were, and urged that the appeal should be remanded for taking evi­dence on this point. We do not think there is any need for a remand. The plain meaning of sub-s. 13 (a) of s, 3 seems to us to be this. If a parcel of land is part of an estate which is sett­led temporarily at full rates, the revenue rate for that parcel of land is the rate at which revenue is for the year actually payable to Government. The view we take of sub s. 13 (a) of 8. 3 is that every parcel of land in an estate settled tem­porarily is settled at full rates which is the normal rate, and that the revenue rate for that parcel of land is the rate at which revenue is for the year actually payable to Government. For all practical purposes then the revenue rate ia the rate at which revenue is for the year actually payable to Government, and upon this basis the trial Court had correctly determined the question of maximum rate. [9] We see no reason, therefore, to interfere in the judgment and decree of the lower appel­late Court and dismiss the appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed.