The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the T. P. Act, the lessee's rights regarding reduction or abatement of rent and assessment of fair rent are limited, and the lessee cannot claim compensation for a breach of the landlord's repair obligations.

Das, J.

1. These four second appeals arise out of three suits for rent & one title suit. The Cts. below dealt with the four suits, & the first appeal arising therefrom, by one judgment. We have also heard the four appeals together, as they raise a common question of law & fact, & the present judgment will govern all the four appeals.

2. The relevant facts are the following. In the three suits for rent, the applts. were the defts. & in the title suit the applts. were the pltfs. The suits related to a pucca, one storeyed, brick-built house with the premises thereof, bearing holding No. 126 in Ward No. 3 of the Muzaffarpur Municipality. The aforesaid house & premises were leased for a term of ten years by means of registered lease dated 81-1-1928, at a monthly rental of Rs. 75. The lease was in favour of one jagdish Chandra Mitra, who got possession, started an ice factory in the building & premises & paid the stipulated rent per month. In July 1930, Jagdish Chandra Mitra transferred his leasehold interest to the present applts. who also came in possession, & continued to work the ice factory on payment of the stipulated rent. Sometime after, they fell in arrears of rent & had some financial difficulty in running the ice factory. On 10-1-1935, they executed a mortge. bond for Rs. 4000 in favour of the reaps a part of the consideration of which went towards the payment of arrears of rent up to December 1934. On 15-1-1934, the great earthquake of Bihar took place, & the case of the applts. was that the building suffered serious damage & part of it fell down as a result of the earthquake shook. According to the contract, as embodied in the lease of 1928, the lessor (that is, the resp.) was to make all repairs of bigger dimensions other than "petty repairs & white washing". The case of the applts. was that the lessor had failed to effect necessary repairs even after notice in 1939. It appears that after 1934 rent was not amicably paid, & the resps. had to bring suits for arrears of rent. Two such suits were brought, previous to the present suits, in which decrees were obtained by the resps. The money suits out of which three of the appeals have arisen related to three different periods from March 1939 to May 1942, for which the resps. claimed arrears of rent at Rs. 75 per month plus interest thereon. In these three suits various defences were taken by the present applts., some of which are no longer of any importance. One of the defences was that the applts. were entitled to a set off of R.s. 1268-13-0 on account of certain acts done by them, such as the filling up of some parti land by the deposit of engine ash, supply of ice, etc. Another defence was that there was a verbal agreement between the parties that the rent would be reduced to Rs. 50 a month on account of the damage done by the earthquak?. A third defence was to the effect that the present applts. had suffered loss as a result of the failure to effect repairs, &, therefore, the Ct. should fix a proper rent for the building & premises. The first two defences are no longer of any importance, because of the findings arrived at by the Cts. below, and learned counsel for the applts. his frankly conceded that he is not in a position to press them at this stage. It is the third defence, embodied in a supplementary written statement, which is of importance in these appeals. As I shall have serious comnvnts to make about the nature of this defence, I had better quote the words of the written statement, so far as the third defence is concerned :

"That after the rent-claimed building with its machinery therein was seriously damaged by the last earthquake of January 1934, & for non-repair of the said building by the pltfs there after, these petnrs. could not run the ice factory & start their business of manufacture of ice when in January 1935, pltfs 1 promised to repair the said building, & further, to advance some amount for starting the business if these defts. would agree