237 



right to let it on any terms he pleased, by throwing on per- 

 sons contesting this right the burden of proving that they 

 had special rights recognized by law or usage having the 

 force of law which derogated from the Zemindar's right. The 

 decisions of the High Court have also not tended to clear up 

 the obscurities and supply the deficiencies in the law, and the 

 frequent fluctuations in the views entertained by the courts as 

 regards the rights of the ryots h-ave, if anything, rendered the 

 law more uncertain. In some of their earliest decisions, the 

 High Court had upheld the view that a ryot was entitled to 

 retain possession of the land as long as he paid the custom- 

 ary rent or share of the produce. Subsequently a change came 

 over the views of the High Court and they ruled that a ryot 

 " holding " as it is called " under a puttah " was not entitled to 

 hold the land for a longer period than that during which the 

 puttah was in force, unless he could prove a special contract, 

 custom or usage to the contrary. This decision was arrived at 

 in the case of lands paying revenue direct to Government and 

 the express declarations of Government to the contrary in 

 their Standing Orders were set aside as not " constituting 

 rights enforceable at law." In recent decisions there has been 

 a tendency to take a more favorable view of the rights of 

 ryots in the case of ryots paying revenue direct to Govern- 

 ment by regarding the ryot's right as arising from occupation 

 of the land and not the puttah which simply defines the de- 

 mand for rent on the ryot for the period specified therein, 

 and not the duration of the occupancy. But still it is impos- 

 sible to say what view the courts would take as regards the 

 right of a Zemindari ryot to hold the land at the end of the 

 term of any subsisting puttah.^"' If the Zemindar sued for 

 ejectment on the ground that the ryot would not pay en- 

 hanced rent, the suit would probably go against him unless 

 he showed that the demand for enhanced rent was justified on 

 the score of the rent-value of the lands having been enhanced 

 by improvements effected by him. If, on other land, the ryot 

 were turned out of the holding on the ground that he had no 

 right to hold the land beyond the term of the puttah, he 

 would have to show either that he derived his title from some 

 one who had occupancy right in the land prior to the perma- 

 nent settlement of the estate — manifestly almost an impossi- 

 bility, — or that the circumstances of the case were such as to 

 *' imply " a contract to allow him to hold the land, and this is 

 a hardship, as there is no certain criterion to determine what 

 circumstan^ces will be accepted by the courts as leading to 



1"' Vide note oij tbp decisions regarding the rights of the ryots ; appendix VI.-B. (2), 



