AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The argument urged in second appeal is that as the defendant has not been using the land in question for a long time for agricultural purposes and
as he constructed buildings on it long ago, the suit cannot be regarded as one for rent as defined in Section 3 Clause 11 of the Estates Land Act.
The definition given in that clause is "" whatever is lawfully payable in money or in kind to a landholder for the use or occupation of land in his estate
for the purpose of agriculture."" In our opinion the definition does not require that the ryot in possession should actually use the land for the purpose
of agriculture supposing he does not use the land at all for any purpose or uses it for some other purpose, he is still liable to pay so long as his right
to use it for agricultural purposes subsists and that what he is bound to pay is rent. We may add that this point does not seem to have been really
raised in the Lower Courts. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.