1. The landlord claims to charge a certain rate for dry lands on which wet crops are raised with Government water under a contract entered into in Fasli 1279 when the change was made from the Asara to the Visabadi system. The District Judge is wrong in supposing that the plaintiffs case was that the question of the rate for such cultivation was reserved for future settlement. The mistake probably arose from the fact that this case was heard along with other cases where there was such a contention. But it is, however, now conceded that there is no evidence of the contract set up. The landlord then contends that he is entitled to varam under the 3rd clause of Section 11 of the Rent Recovery Act. It is argued on his behalf that the rule as to the Collectors sanction for enhancement does not apply when the landlord merely claims to revert to varam when there is no contract. We think this contention is right. The learned Advocate-General, who appears for the respondent, does not dispute the correctness of this view. But he argues that there was a contract to pay the dry rate for dry land though cultivated with wet crop with the aid of Krishna water. This question was not express