The petitioner is the landlord, and the first respondent is the tenant. The petitioner filed R. C. P. No. 56 of 1949 for evicting his tenant under section 7(2)(i) of Madras Act XXV of 1949. The application for eviction was based upon two grounds: (1) that the tenant was committing nuisance and (2) that he made a default in payment of rent from February, 1948. The tenant filed an application a few days prior to the application filed by the petitioner, for fixing the fair rent. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent and also held that the said rate should come into force from nth March, 1947. As the excess rent paid by the tenant on the basis of the pre-existing rate of rent fixed by the Rent Controller would be much more than the rent actually due to him, the Rent Controller dismissed the application for eviction. In appeal the Subordinate Judge also took the same view and dismissed the appeal.

Mr. Subramaniam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Rent Controller could not take into consideration the unadjusted amounts in the possession of the landlord, and that as a default to pay rent was committed within the meaning of section 7(2) of the Act, he had