process, but not immediately. Rule 18 thereof deals with the rentals to be charged for the lease or license as the case may be of the land trees, if any, standing thereon and included in the lease or licencee at such rate as the Government may, by order, specify. The Government having, from time to time, fixed the lease rent of the premises and the lessees having remitted the lease rent thus fixed, no authority is vested with the 2nd respondent-District Collector to enhance the lease rent with retrospective effect, it is contended. Further it is also urged that even in the case of enhancement of lease rent prospectively, the same can be only at such rate as the Government may, by order, specify. In the absence of any such specification by the Government with regard to premises leased out by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, the unilateral enhancement of lease rent by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P14 is illegal and exorbitant. More particularly, it is urged that it can be seen from Ext.P4 series of receipts that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner , who had been assigned the land on lease, had paid the rent at prescribed rates, which has been revised from time to time. That the revenue authorities having accepted the rent without any demur in respect of the leased
