JUDGMENT
James, J.
1. These are eight appeals from the decrees of the District Judge of Shahabad enhancing the rent of the appellants under Section 30(b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In one of the suits, to which Second Appeal No. 819 relates, the land in occupation of the raiyat is partly orchard and partly bhit; in the other cases the holdings consist exclusively of the orchard lands. Mr. B.P. Varma on behalf of the appellants argues that the provisions of Section 39(b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act ought not to be applied to enhance the rent of any holding except so far as it consists of land on which food crops are grown, meaning by food crops what are ordinarily called cereals. He cites the decision of this Court in Jeo Nath Jha v. Mahanth Bishambhar Das 106 Ind. Cas. 422 : 8 P.L.T. 495, in which it was held that no enhancement could be claimed on the ground of rise in prices of staple food crops in respect of land which is used in such a way, with the acquiescence of the landlord, that food crops cannot be raised thereon. In that case the land in respect of which enhancement was claimed was covered with trees and also contained a house, but it does not appear that the trees were fruit trees, still less that the trees were cultivated for the purpose of selling their fruit. But if in that case the land had been cultivated with fruit trees grown by the tenant for the purpose of selling the fruit, he would apparently have been liable to enhancement of rent under Section 30(b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It is suggested by Mr. Varma that land of this kind should be regarded as horticultural land as distinct from agricultural land. But, in the Bengal Tenancy Act, where a raiyat is defined as a person who takes land for the purposes of cultivation, the only distinction between orchard land and land generally described as agricultural is to be found in the proviso to sub Section (3) of Section 178 which makes special provision for contracts for the temporary cultivation of orchard lands. If in the ordinary way an orchard is leased for cultivation to a settled raiyat, he will acquire the rights of an occupancy raiyat on that land, and with those rights he will acquire the liabilities of an occupancy raiyat, one of which is that he will be liable to enhancement of rent on the ground of rise in the prices of staple food crops. A raiyat acquires lands for cultivation; he may grow on it linseed or flax or indigo, or he may, if the land is orchard land, grow guavas or mangoes for sale; but, when the question arises of whether his rent should be enhanced on account of the increased value of the produce of his land, it is the increase in the value of staple food crops which is taken into consideration, and not the increased value of the particular crops which the raiyat may have grown. The decision of the learned District Judge that the rents of three holdings were liable to enhancement must, therefore, be affirmed.
2. Mr. Varma argues in the second place that by virtue of the provisions of Section 35 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, if enhancement is to be made of land cultivated with fruit trees, it should be at a lower rate than is ordinarily allowed for land on which staple food crops are grows. The learned District Judge in his judgment has given due weight to the effect of Section 35 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and there would be no justification for interfering with his decision on this account.
3. I would, therefore, affirm the decision of the lower Appellate Court and dismiss the appeals with costs.
Chatterji, J.
4. I agree.