1. This is an appeal by the Defendants in a suit for rent, and the question in controversy is whether the relationship of landlord and tenant subsists between the patties. The facts necessary for the determination of this question may be briefly stated. Sri Nath Bhadra and Sri Nath Biswas held lands under the Government under a temporary settlement which was not to expire till the end of the year 1890. During the currency of this settlement they granted a permanent sub-lease to the Plaintiffs-Respondents on the 30th December 1873. The grantors and the grantees were aware of the precarious nature of their interest, but the parties assumed that upon the expiry of the then current term of settlement the Government would renew the lease in favour of the grantors, possibly upon payment of enhanced revenue. The grantees accordingly agreed that if at any future time the Government imposed an additional revenue, the grantees themselves would bear the additional burden in proportion to the area of land held by them. On the 4th February 1874, the lessees under the lease of the 30th December 1873 granted a permanent lease to one of the grantors. Here again a provision was inserted to the effect that if the revenue was increased upon a future settlement, the tenant would bear the burden in proportion to the land in his possession. Ever since then, the sub-lessee and his successor-in-interest have been in occupation of the land. The settlement has been from time to time renewed by the Government in favour of the original settlement-holders or their representatives. In the course of the last settlement, the under-tenures for some unexplained reason were not mentioned in the settlement records. In answer to the present suit for rent, the Defendants, the sub-lessees, under the permanent sublease of the 4th September 1874, contend that the Plaintiffs are no longer entitled to recover rent from them inasmuch as their tenures have not been recognised by the settlement authorities. This contention is obviously without foundation. The mere omission of the Settlement authorities to make an entry in the settlement records in respect of the tenures and under-tenures cannot affect the rights of the parties. On the other hand, it cannot be disputed for a moment that the effect of the resettlement by the Government with the original settlement holders was to keep alive the contractual obligation of the subordinate holders as amongst themselves. This position is supported by the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Pria Nath Das v. Ram Taran Chatterjee 7 C. W. N. 601: s. c. I. L. R. 30 Cal. 811 (1903), and in fact accords with the view taken by this Court in an earlier litigation between these very parties which arose upon the termination of a previous settlement. It has been contended, however, that a different view of the rights and obligations of the parties should be taken on this occasion ; because the tenure and under-tenure have not been recorded in the course of the settlement now current. As we have already explained, this circumstance does not in our opinion affect the position of the parties. Their rights and obligations are mutual ; the Plaintiffs are bound to make good the title of the Defendants as soon as by virtue of the resettlement they are placed in a position to continue the lease in favour of the Defendants, and similarly the Defendants are under an obligation to continue as tenants under the Plaintiffs on the basis of the lease of the 4th February 1874 and to pay rent accordingly. In this view the Plaintiffs have been rightly allowed a decree for rent as against the Defendants.
2. The result is that the decree of the Subordinate Judge must be affirmed and this appeal dismissed with costs.
