1. This second appeal on behalf of the tenant defendant involves a question which may be described as whether defaults can be tacked. The learned Advocates for both the sides could not refer to any decision exactly on the point and the point is somewhat important. The facts are that the property in dispute belonged to five brothers, who were joint owners of the premises in suit. There was a partition suit No. 1811 of 1952 in this High Court in respect of their joint property and by virtue of the partition decree the plaintiff became the sole owner of the suit premises together with all arrears of rent due from the tenants and the Official Receiver delivered possession of the premises to the plaintiff on the 15th July, 1955.

2. The position is that the tenant defaulted in payment of rent from July, 1954 and there is no dispute that the tenant defaulted in payment of rent referred to in clause (i) of the Proviso to sub-section (1) of section 12, Rent Control Act, 1950, on three occasions Within a period of eighteen months. This is not disputed but it is contended that the entire default between the period of July 1954 and July 1955 was during a period when five brothers were