£04
leased and the terms of agreement. This survey yielded
the following results :
(i) 888 acres out of 3143 cultivated acres or about 28
per cent, was leased on kind-rent; 195 acres or about 6
per cent, was leased on a cash rent of Rs. 2195 m a^ or
Rs. 11.2 per acre, and the rest was cultivated by the
owners.
(ii) As a rule, big landowners who live within the vil-
lage are unwilling to lease land on a cash-rent since, as
they said, it is not so beneficial to them as kind-rent.
(iii) The few plots which they leased on a cash basis con-
tained only grass which has little value as compared with
corn. The landlord does not, therefore, bother about a
share in kind in such cases.
(iv) The landlords residing outside the village usually
lease land on cash terms, since they do not care to put
themselves to the trouble involved in (a) going to the vil-
lage to collect their share after weighing the produce,
and (b) keeping constant watch over the tenant lest he
may conceal some part of the produce, and consequently
give less to the landlord than his share.
(v) Sugarcane land is generally leased on cash-rent by
the tenant because kind-rent is unfavourable to him. If
he leased an acre on kind-rent he would have to part with
about Rs. 355 worth of gul but if he rents it on a cash
basis, he has to pay only Rs. 90 to Rs. 120 only.
(vi) In some cases the landowner was the sowkar and
the tenant his client. The latter had mortgaged his land
to the former for a loan. In such cases the rent included
interest on the sum borrowed in addition to the normal
rent.
(vii) In a few cases we found that the tenant was the
original owner of land. He transferred it to his sowkar
in repayment of his debt. Yet he cultivated it as a tenant
and would pay any rent, and would not leave it because it
was once his own property.
From the facts given above, namely, that the resident
laiKllord is unwilling to lease on<:ash-rent land which yields