JUDGMENT Mitter, J. - Maharaja Sir Jatindra Mohan Tagore, the Plaintiff's grandfather, was the 16 annas owner of touzi No. 290 and the 8 annas owner of touzi No. 1068 of the Murshidabad Collectorate. 2. In 1885 he granted a patni tenure to Praneshwar Ghosh and Kunja Bihari Ghosh in respect of certain tarafs and mouzas of the said two touzis. This patni tenure was in substitution of two earlier patni tenures which had passed to the said two Ghoshes. The patni patta is not on the record, but the corresponding patni kahuliyat, which Praneshwar Ghosh and Kunja Bihari Ghosh had executed in favour of the Maharaja on Bhadra 31, 1292 B.S. (= September 15, 1885), has been produced and proved. It is Ex. 2. The annual patni rent was fixed in the kabuliyat at Rs. 4,055-5 payable in twelve monthly kists. The patnidars agreed to pay the amount without any deduction whatsoever either on account of failure of crops, diluvion or submergence under water or any other cause. In or about 1894, the eight annas share which Praneshwar had in the patni tenure was purchased by Robert Watson and Co., Ltd. at a court-sale held in execution of a decree obtained by it against Praneshwar's heirs. The company caused the zemindar, namely, Maharaja Jatindra Mohan to recognise the purchase and to register its name in his sherista on payment of Rs. 41 as landlord's fee. The company also gave security for payment of the patni rent, as it was required to do under the Patni Regulation-VIII of 1819. The registered security bond is Ex. L. The landlord's fee was calculated and paid on the basis that the patni rent was Rs. 4,055 odd per year, the amount which the patnidars had engaged to pay annually by their kabuliyat. The security bond recited inter alia that the patni rent was Rs. 4,055-5, but that, on account of the condition of the mehal the patnidars Praneshwar Ghosh and Kunja Bihari had been paying from 1298 B.S. (= 1891-1892) a sum of Rs. 3,805-5 annually after deducting of Rs. 250 for hajat kami. 3. The predecessors of Defendants Nos. 1 to 9 purchased the 8 annas share of the patni from the company in the year 1899 by Ex. 3,805-5 annually after deducting of Rs. 250 for hajat kami. 3. The predecessors of Defendants Nos. 1 to 9 purchased the 8 annas share of the patni from the company in the year 1899 by Ex. C and Defendant No. 10 purchased the other eight annas share of the patni, which previously belonged to Kunja Bihari Ghosh, in the year (1932). B.S. 1339 The ten Defendants are now the patnidars under the Plaintiff. 4. On March 5, 1942, the Plaintiff sued them for the balance of the rent due for the year 1345 B.S. and for the whole rent due for year 1347 B.S. His claim is on the basis that the annual rent is Rs. 4,055-5, the amount mentioned in the kahuliyat, Ex. 2. 5. The defence is that they were entitled to the hajat of Rs. 250 and so were liable to pay only at the rate of Rs. 3,805-5 per year. The learned Subordinate Judge has given effect to the defence and has passed a decree in part in favour of the Plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 5,051-10-1 with proportionate costs. The decree is on the basis that the recoverable rent is Rs. 3,805-5 per year and not Rs. 4,055-5 as claimed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has filed this appeal for the balance. 6. It has been proved that for a very long time the Plaintiff and his predecessors had been realising rent at the rate of Rs. 3,805-5 per year. 7. The word hajat is defined in Wilson's Glossary as "need, want, necessity, any natural want." Hajat kami, when applied to rent, would, accordingly, mean relief given to the tenant on account of his want or necessity. The ordinary significance of phrase hajat kami or of the word hajat is temporary abeyance. The temporary abeyance may depend upon the will of the landlord, in which case it can be withdrawn at any moment by him without assigning any reason, as in such a case it would be regarded an ex gratia relief given to the tenant. Hajat may also be made dependant upon a condition and if it was supported by consideration, it cannot be withdrawn as long as the condition continues. It would be for the landlord to show that the condition, on which it was given, had disappeared before he can recover rent at the full rate. Hajat may also be made dependant upon a condition and if it was supported by consideration, it cannot be withdrawn as long as the condition continues. It would be for the landlord to show that the condition, on which it was given, had disappeared before he can recover rent at the full rate. This is settled by a number of decisions of this Court: Nirode Kumar Roy v. Raj Lakshmi Dasi (1928) 33 C.W.N. 309; Rashmoni Bewa v. Dhirendranath Roy (1928) 33 C.W.N. 311; Nirod Kumar Roy v. Pulin Bihari Chandra (1925) 33 C.W.N. 312. In all these cases there was consideration for the hajat, for the clause about hajat had been incorporated in the very document by which the tenancy had been created. 8. There is another line of cases where hajat had also been provided for in the very document by which the tenancy had been created. In cases of this type the question has been whether the clause about hajat was put in simply in terrorem or was intended to form a part of the jamabandi. In the former type, the net amount, after the deduction of the amount described as hajat, was to be regarded as the true and real rent, but, in the latter type, it could be withdrawn and what was mentioned as rent in the document could be recovered, if the conditions governing resumption be fulfilled: Abhoya Sanker Mazumdar v. Rajani Mandal (1918) 22 C.W.N. 904, 906; Jitendra Nath Roy v. Tejarat Mea (1928) 32 C.W.N. 1240. The case before us, however, is of a different type. By the terms of the engagement as embodied in the kabuliyat, Ex. 2, the patnidars agreed to pay the rent of Rs. 4,055-5 without deduction for any reason. The document did not mention hajat and in terms no part of the rent was kept in abeyance. The hajat was admittedly granted after the creation of the tenancy. The security bond, Ex. L, which Robert Watson and Company, Ltd. had executed in 1897, mentioned that the previous patnidars had been granted a remission of Rs. 250 per year in the year 1891 as hajat kami and that hajat kami was being allowed at that time on account of the condition of the mehal. The security bond, Ex. L, which Robert Watson and Company, Ltd. had executed in 1897, mentioned that the previous patnidars had been granted a remission of Rs. 250 per year in the year 1891 as hajat kami and that hajat kami was being allowed at that time on account of the condition of the mehal. There is nothing to show what was the precise condition on which the zamindar had allowed hajat, and what is of more importance, there is no indication whatsoever of the consideration which had moved from the patnidars, which alone could have supported a claim as of right on their part to the hajat kami as against the zemindar. This cannot be a case for permanent remission of the said amount, for a permanent remission in essence is reduction of rent. Having regard to the fact that the patni tenure, which was created in 1885, had to be created, as in fact it was, by a registered document, the rent could not be varied in law, except by a registered instrument: Lalit Mohan Ghosh v. Gopalichuck Coal Company Ltd. (1911) ILR 39 Cal. 284, Durga Prasad Singh v. Rajendra Narayan Bagchi (1913) ILR 41 Cal. 493 : L.R. 40 IndAp 223. The document, Ex. L, is a registered document, but it does not purport to vary the patni rent. It is simply a security bond. The contention of the learned advocate for the Respondent that, because security was given for Rs. 3,305-5 the patni rent must be taken to have been reduced to that figure, cannot be accepted. The position simply was that the zemindar chose to accept, as it was open to him to do, security for the rent which he was then realising. Besides it could not in law vary it, for the sixteen annas patnidars were not parties to it. 9. Two documents have been put in by the Plaintiff. They have been marked Ex. 9(a) and Ex. 10. They are two letters dated July 22 and August 12, 1933, respectively, addressed to the General Secretary and Chief Manager of the Plaintiff. Those letters contain the admission that the hajat was temporary and depended on the grace of the Plaintiff. The letters purport to be signed by Nalini Nath Chatterji, Shambhu Nath Chatterji, Anil Kumar Chatterji and Shishir Kumar Mukherji. Those letters contain the admission that the hajat was temporary and depended on the grace of the Plaintiff. The letters purport to be signed by Nalini Nath Chatterji, Shambhu Nath Chatterji, Anil Kumar Chatterji and Shishir Kumar Mukherji. Shishir Kumar Mukherji has 8 annas share in the patni tenure, being the successor-in-interest of Kunja Bihari Ghosh. He collects his rent separately. The other eight annas of the patni belongs to the Chatterjis. The Chatterji patnidars fall into two groups. One group is represented by Anil and Santosh and other by Nalini and his brother Shambhu. This is the evidence of the Defendant No. 3, Nalini. That is also the effect of the record-of-rights, Ex. E, where the shares of their father are separately shown. The Plaintiffs' officer, Dhirendra Nath Sen, deposed that he was familiar with the writing of Batuk (Defendant No. 4) and the signatures of Anil (Defendant No. 1) and Shishir (Defendant No. 10). He said that both those letters, Exs. 9(a) and 10, were in the handwriting of Batuk and two of the Signatures were of Anil and Shishir. Batuk, who is a practising pleader. He was sitting in court and was taking part in the case. He did not venture on the witness box to give a denial. Anil is also a practising mukhtear of position and was for some time ammuktear of the Plaintiff. He also did not come to the witness-box to give a denial. This witness of the Plaintiff did not attempt to prove the signatures of Nalini and Shambhu. That shows his honesty when he said he was familiar only with he handwriting of Batuk and the signatures of Anil and Shishir. Shishir has denied his signature. As the evidence of the Plaintiff's witnesses that the letters are in handwriting of Batuk and bear the signature of Anil remain unchallenged, we cannot hold that Exs. 9(a) and 10 are spurious documents. 10. After his purchase, Shishir made an application for separate account in respect of his share of the patni u/s 6A of the Patni Regulation. In the application, Ex. D, he stated the annual rent of the patni to be Rs. 3,805-5. Notice of that application was served on the then zemindar, the Plaintiff's (sic) (Ex. 10. After his purchase, Shishir made an application for separate account in respect of his share of the patni u/s 6A of the Patni Regulation. In the application, Ex. D, he stated the annual rent of the patni to be Rs. 3,805-5. Notice of that application was served on the then zemindar, the Plaintiff's (sic) (Ex. B) and a separate account was allowed to be opened in his name for his share as prayed for, that is, as showing that be rent payable in his undivided eight annas share in the patni (sic) Rs. 1,902-10-6 pies. As he was not the purchaser of specific lots within the patni in patni right, but had purchased an liquot share, namely, undivided eight annas share in the whole of the patni, the Collector was not required to and could not, determine vis-a-vis the zemindar the amount of rent that he was to pay to the zemindar. The zemindar had, therefore, no interest to appear in those proceedings and he did not in fact appear. The fact that, in the separate account opened in his name, the rent was shown as one half of Rs. 3,805-5 and not one half of Rs. 4,055-5 cannot and does not affect the Plaintiff's right to recover the patni rent at the rate of Rs. 4,055-5 per annum if he is otherwise entitled to do so. 11. The result is that this appeal is allowed. The Plaintiff's right that he is entitled to recover rent at the rate of Rs. 4,055-5 per year is declared and his suit decreed in full with full costs of the court below. He would get costs of this appeal also. P.N. Mitra J. 12. I agree.