JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent. The plaintiff claimed interest on the arrears of rent at the rate of 150 per sent, per annum. The Courts below disallowed the high rate of interest on the ground that it was exorbitant and awarded damages at 25 per sent. The land was held under a lease for a term of three years from Magh 1285 to Pous 1288. The lease expired before the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act; there was no fresh lease and the tenant was holding over.

2. There is divergence of judicial opinion upon the question as to the effect of holding over. In the case of Kishore Lal Dey v. The Adminsitrator-General of Bengal 2 C.W. N. 303. Ghose and Wilkins, JJ., were of opinion that when a tenant holds over, after the expiration of his lease, he does so on the terms of the lease, on the same rent and on the same stipulations as are mentioned in the lease until the parties come to a fresh settlement; that there is no general rule of law to the effect that the lease of an agricultural tenant in this country who holds over, must be taken as renewed from year to year, and that if any contract is to be implied, it should be taken to have been entered into so n