JUDGMENT
1. These appeals arise out of suits for rent. The plea of the defendants was that they were entitled to remission of rent on account of damages caused by inundation. The Record of Rights shows that the tenants recorded with regard to the holdings are entitled to remission of rent in cases of inundation, draught and so on. Relying on that Record-of-Rights both the Courts below have allowed the tenants a remission of rent. The plaintiff appeals against the decision of the District Judge affirming that of the Munsif. The main contention on behalf of the plaintiff is that the Settlement Officer had no jurisdiction to enter in the Record of Rights any such fact and to state that the tenants are entitled to remission of rent under the circumstances stated therein. We are, however, of opinion that the Settlement Officer was bound to record these conditions under Section 102(h) of the Bengal Tenancy Act which enacts that the record should contain “the special conditions and incidents, if any, of the tenancy”. The ground on which a remission may be claimed by a tenant may very well be said as one of the special conditions and incidents of the tenancy. This was so held in two unreported decisions of this Court, namely, the cases of Hari Mohan Dalal v. Manx Haity S.A. No. 2571 of 1920 decided on the 8th August, 1923, to which one of us was a party and Prohlad Chandra Chatterjee v. Mahendra Nath Gapait S.A. No. 2601 of 1921, decided on the 24th January, 1924 Since reported as . The contention, therefore, of the plaintiff-appellant must fail. As this is the only point raised in the appeals, the appeals must be dismissed with costs.
