This second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of rent under the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971, hereinafter 'the Act'. The appellants-defendants were occupancy tenants in respect of the suit land. The respondents-plaintiffs were the landlords. A suit was filed against the appellants-defendants for recovery of rent in respect of 21 bighas of land which was in occupation of the appellants. Rent was in arrear for three years. Rent was also claimed in respect of 3 bighas and odd of homestead land. 2. The case of the appellants-defendants was that they had already delivered the paddy due from them by way of crop rent. The learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Cachar on consideration of the evidence came to a finding that rent for three years had not been paid. It was held that the plaintiffs-respondents were entitbd to 252 maunds of the crop calculated at the rate of l/5th of the produce grown on the suit land. The price of the said crop was determined at the rate of Rs. 25/- per maund. It was held that the plaintiffs were entitled to rent for homestead land measuring 3 bighas and odd at the rate of Rs. 23.94 per year for three years. In addition, it was also held that the plaintiff; were entitled to 63 maunds of the crop as compensation the value of which was also determined at the rate of Rs. 25/-per maund. The total amount determined came to Rs. 7898.94 and the suit was decreed accordingly. The aforesaid judgment and decree were challenged in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Cacbar who affirmed the findings of the trial Court and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to i/5th share of the paddy. The decree for Rs. 7898/- passed by the trial Court was affirmed. The defendants have filed this second appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge, 3. The only grievance of the appellant is that the learned trial Court committed a mistake of law in granting compensation to the extent of 63 maunds of paddy and adding a sum of Rs. 1575.00 on that account to the amount due by way of rent. The only grievance of the appellant is that the learned trial Court committed a mistake of law in granting compensation to the extent of 63 maunds of paddy and adding a sum of Rs. 1575.00 on that account to the amount due by way of rent. The submission of the counsel for the appellants is that in a rent suit the Court has no power to grant compensation in addition to the rent at the maximum rate as provided under section 28 of the Act. Section 28 of the Act provides that in case of crop-rent, the maximum rate of rent should not exceed one-fifth of the produce of the principal crop grown in each agricultural year. Learned counsel submits that there is no provision in the Act which empowers the Court to grant anything by way of compensation over and above rent at the maximum rate specified in section 28 of the Act. 4. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. Heard also Mr. S. K. Senapati, learned counsel for the respondents. There is no dispute in this case that in addition to the refit at the maximum rate specific- in section 28 (b) of the Act a sum of Rs. 1275.00 has also been decreed by way of compensation (being the value of 63 maunds of paddy calculated at the rate of Rs. 25/-per maund). I have carefully considered the provisions of the Act. Section 27 of the Act is relevant in this connection. It provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law, custom or agreement, no tenant shall be liable to pay rent whether in cash or in kind at a rate exceeding the maximum rate of rent as provided for in Chapter VII of the Act. As already indicated above, the maximum rate of rent payable by a occupancy tenant has been specified in section 28 of the Act, clause (b) whereof applies to crop rent. The maximum rate of rent under the said clause cannot exceed one-fifth of the produce of principal crop grown in each agricultural year. There does not appear to be any other provision which empowers the Court to grant anything by way of compensation in addition to the rent at the maximum rent specified in section 28. In the instant case, the rent was allowed at maximum rate prescribed in section 28 (b) of the Act. There does not appear to be any other provision which empowers the Court to grant anything by way of compensation in addition to the rent at the maximum rent specified in section 28. In the instant case, the rent was allowed at maximum rate prescribed in section 28 (b) of the Act. There is no dispute in this appeal so far as that amount is concerned. The only dis­pute relates to grant of compensation in addition to the maximum rent. 5. In view of what is stated above, I am of the opinion that in a rent suit under the Act, no compensation can be awarded by the Court in addition to the sent at the maximum rate. From the appellate judgment, it appears that appellate Court rightly held that the plaintiffs were entitled to one-fifth share of the paddy. The appellate Court did nut hold that the plaintiffs were also entitled to 63 maunds of paddy by way of compensation. However, while referring to the amount of compensation the learned appellate Court inadvertently repeated the amount decreed by the trial Court which was Rs. 789a/- without taking note of the fact that a sum of Rs. 1575/- awarded by way of compensa­tion was also included in that amount. In view of what is stated above, I am of the opinion that the Courts below were not justified in granting compensation in addition to the rent at the maximum rate. The decree therefore, stands modified to that extent. The amount of Rs. 789 /-shall be reduced" to Rs. 6323.00. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.