JUDGMENT Pullan, J.
1. The parties in this case are landlord and tenant. The original rent of this holding was Rs. 77-8-0 which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 80 by a thekadar. This thekadar however, was held by the Courts to have no authority and finally an agreement was entered into between the parties by which the rent was enhanced to Rs. 100 and the defendant was to have occupancy rights. The landlord has now sued the tenant, claiming rent at Rs. 100; but the lower Court has refused to decree the suit for more than Rs. 80 on the ground that the agreement to enhance the rent was not made in accordance with law. The law is correctly stated by the lower appellate Court and it is to the effect that an enhancement stipulating for rent not exceeding Rs. 100, if not made by a registered instrument, may be attested, by a revenue Court. This, agreement was attested by a revenue Court, but relying on a decision of this Court reported as Dat Prasad Singh v. Gopal Ram [1916] 14 A.L.J. 57 the lower Court has held that the agreement has not been sufficiently attested.
2. There is a great difference between these two cases. In the case cited, the rent stipulated was for Rs. 200 and the revenue Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to attest the enhancement. Thus there is only one point on which the former decision can be consulted profitably and that is whether the attestation is or is not sufficient. In the year 1902 the Government published a suggested form of the endorsement by a revenue Court in such cases; but I am afraid that the terms of this Government order are not generally known. In any case, it merely indicates the terms which the endorsement should take and the Court has only to consider whether, as a matter, of fact, the revenue Court, before making the endorsement satisfied itself as to the identity of the parties, and their acquaintance with and assent to the terms of the agreement.
3. In the present case there is an endorsement which certainly shows that the revenue Court satisfied itself as to the identity of the parties, and the fact that they drew up and signed the agreement may very well have been held by it to be sufficient to show that they understood its contents. I am certainly not prepared to find that the endorsement is irregular and as the revenue Court had full power to make such an endorsement, I consider that the respondent is bound by the terms of the agreement and must pay rent at the higher rate. His refusal to do so, seeing that he has claimed occupancy rights in accordance with that same agreement, is thoroughly dishonest and should not have been condoned by the lower appellate Court.
4. I allow this appeal with costs including costs in this Court on the higher scale, and order that the decree of the Court of first instance be restored.