1. This is a defendants second appeal questioning the validity of the decree in ejectment passed by the trial Court and confirmed in appeal by the District Judge of Santal Parganas, Dumka. The appellant was a monthly tenant under the land-lady of the suit premises, the monthly rental being Rs. 17. The decree for ejectment against him was passed on the ground that he was a de-faulter and was liable to be evicted by not having paid the amount of six months rent from January, 1966 to June, 1966 lawfully payable by and due from him.

2. Two submissions have been made by the appellant. First, it is contended by the learned counsel that the default being on the basis that the monthly rental was Rs. 17.00 cannot afford a ground for eviction because the rent in arrears was unlawful under S. 4 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (Bihar Act III of 1947). it hav-ing been illegally enhanced from Rs. 13.00 to Rs. 17.00. This contention was raised before the District Judge and was over-ruled, and, in my opinion, rightly. It was never the case of the defendant that he ever tendered or remitted by post the rent to the plaintiff even at the rate law-fully paya