JUDGMENT

Sir Richard Couch, Kt. C.J.

1. This suit was brought in the Court of the Deputy Collector of Jessore under cl. 4, s. 23 of Act X of 1859, for arrears of rent at an enhanced rate, of land held by the defendant in the Jessore Bazar. The land was occupied by a building, which was admitted to be the property of the defendant, and no part of the rent claimed was alleged to be due on account of the building. When, or under what circumstances, the building was erected does not appear. The Deputy Collector made a decree for rent at an enhanced rate, which was reversed by the Officiating Judge of Jessore on the ground that the suit should not have been brought under Act X of 1859. He seems to have considered it as a suit for the rent of a house which it was not, but possibly he may have, meant the rent of the land upon which the house stood. On special appeal to this Court the learned Judges by whom the case was heard were divided in opinion,--Glover, J., holding that the rent of land used for building purposes cannot be enhanced by a suit under Act X of 1859, and Mitter, J., holding that a suit for arrears of rent of land, although it was occupied by a building, was within cl. 4 of 8. 23; apparently assuming that if a suit for rent would lie a suit for enhanced rent would. And if by land in that clause is meant land occupied by a building. I do not see how the conclusion that a suit for a higher or enhanced root of such land may be brought it the Collector's Court can be avoided. The erection of a building upon the land with the consent of the landlord does not give to the occupant a right to hold the land perpetually at the same rent. If his rent was liable to be raised before, it would be so still, unless the circumstances amounted to an implied contract on the landlord's part that he should always hold at the same rent, or, in fact, to the grant of a perpetual tenancy at a fixed rent, which would be determined by the Court in a suit between them. If, as Mitter, J., thinks, s. 6 of Act X applies, and a ryot holding such land for twelve years has a right of occupancy, s. 17 must also apply so far as the ground for enhancement can be made applicable. But I think that in determining what is the meaning of "land" and "holding land" in Act, X we must look at all the provisions of the Act. It may be assumed that it was not intended that one part of it should apply to one kind of land and another part to another, and that land in ft. 23 should have a different meaning from what it has in other sections. The Deputy Collector says with truth that it is extremely difficult to apply to bazar lands occupied merely as building ground the provisions of s. 17, which are manifestly intended to be applied to the rent of lands used for agricultural purposes. And these are not the only provisions in the Act of which that may be said. S. 112 and the following sections can only apply to land used for cultivation. The intention of the Legislature is to be deduced from the whole Act, and a construction which makes the whole of it consistent is to be preferred. I think this is the ground of the decisions in this Court that lauds used for building purposes are not liable to enhancement under Act X. And when we consider that a right of occupancy of laud used for building purposes at a permanent rent may depend in some cases upon the terms of the original letting or upon equities arising out of the landlord's conduct, the suit for a higher or enhanced rent seems to be properly cognizable in the ordinary Civil Courts. I therefore think the decree should he confirmed.

2. Ainslir J.--I concur.

Bayley, J.--I am of opinion that the suit for enhancement tinder the circumstances of this case will not lie under Act X. of 1859, and the current of decision is to that effect.

¹ Before Mr. Justice Kemp and Mr. Justice Glover.

Khairuddin Ahmed and Others (Plaintiff's) v. Abdul Baki (Defendants)."

Special Appeal, No. 2973 of 1868, from a decree of th