1. In this appeal it has been contended that the lower Appellate Court has wrongly given the defendant-respondent the benefit of the presumption prescribed in Section 4 of the Rent Act VIII of 1869, although his tenancy commenced less than twenty years before the suit was brought, and he did not, as found by the Judge, acquire the land by any transfer from the previous tenant.
2. The words of the section are sufficiently plain; and seem to us to entitle the holder of the land for the time being, however, he may have acquired it, to the benefit of the presumption, if he can show that there has been a continuous and uniform payment of the same rent for 20 years. This interpretation is not inconsistent with what has been decided in this Court in previous cases, though in those cases it was not necessary to lay down more than this, that the holding of the ryot, or of some person through whom he claims, for a period of 20 years, was enough to raise the presumption.
3. In the present case it has been found that there was no break in the continuity of the payment of the rent alleged by the defendant, but that he, without any interruption of tenancy, was substituted by the zamindar for the previous tenant, and continued to pay the same rent.
4. In our opinion, therefore, the lower Court has rightly given him the benefit of the presumption, having found the necessary facts in his favour.
5. The appeal is dismissed without costs, as nobody appears for respondent.