Subrahmania Ayyar, J.

1. In this case the suit was brought by the Petitioner, a landlord, against the Defendant, his tenant, for the recovery of rent of the fasli year 1310. Before suit a patta had been tendered, but was not accepted. At the trial, the Defendant urged that certain terms in the patta (to be referred to and considered later on), were such as to entitle him to refuse to accept the patta. The District Munsif agreed with the contention and dismissed the suit.

2. The Petitioner, whilst denying that the terms of the patta referred to were open to such objection, contended that, even if they were, the Defendant was estopped from, raising any such question in the present suit inasmuch as pattas containing precisely similar terms had been accepted for a series of years in respect of the same holding.

3. Without taking any evidence as to the truth of the allegations on which this contention was based, the District Munsif held that, even assuming the allegations to be true, they could not support a plea of estoppel. Is this conclusion sustainable? Now there can be no doubt that if previous to the year to the rent of which the suit relates, the tenant had in express terms