236 



either party be dissatisfied with the rate so determined, he 

 may claim that the rent be discharged in kind according to 

 the Waram, i.e. according to the established rate of the vil- 

 lage for dividing the crop between the Government or the 

 land-lord and the cultivator ; (5) in the case of immemorial 

 waste or of lands left unoccupied either through default or 

 voluntary resignation, it shall be lawful for land-holders to 

 arrange their own terms of rent. As regards the question 

 of ejectment, the Committee provided that tenants of Zemin- 

 dars wei'e not to be ejected except by an order of the Collector 

 or the decree of a Court. This provision, however, they 

 explained in their report to be intended " to protect ryots 

 who had land in their own right hereditarily or by the custom 

 of the country against sudden ejectment" and that "the 

 case of temporary tenants who refused to vacate land or 

 who resisted the land-holder's entry when the term of their 

 tenancy had expired did not belong to this bill" but was to 

 be dealt by the Civil and Criminal Courts. 



When the Bill was passed into law, the provision to the 

 effect that payment of rent at a certain rate for a period of 

 12 years should be taken to import an implied contract to 

 pay at that rate for ever was omitted, but the reasons for 

 the omission have not been stated. On the other hand, the 

 absolute right intended to be conceded to land-holders to 

 arrange their terms of rent in the case of waste lands was 

 qualified by the proviso that this provision was not to affect 

 any special rights which, by law or usage having the force of 

 law, are held by any class of persons in such waste or unoc- 

 cupied lands. 



86. Act|YIII of 1865, instead of clearing up the ambi- 

 „,„ oruities in the law of land -lord and tenant 



Failure of Act VIII «=-,.. . .. „- 



of 1865 to protect the and placiug the rights ot the ryots on a 

 rightB of zemindari ^^11 uuderstood basis, has had the effect 

 ^^^ ' of involving the relations of Zemindars 



and ryots in greater confusion than they were in before. By 

 declaring that all contracts " express" or " implied " are to be 

 enforced, it has opened a wide door for doubts and conten- 

 tions of all kinds. It has entirely missed its object which 

 was to accord legislative recognition to the principle that 

 was understood.^to be part of the common law of the country, 

 viz., that the ryots were entitled to hold the lands in their 

 occupation as long as they paid the customary rent accord- 

 ing to the established rates. As regards immemorial waste 

 and lands left unoccupied by default or voluntary resignation, 

 it has established a presumption in favour of the Zemindar's 



