Varadachariar, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for rent. The appellants are husband and wife but it will be convenient to refer to the husband who is the first plaintiff as the plaintiff. He has a brother named Hanumantha Rao and the arrangement made by the defendant with Hanumantha Rao for the purchase of the latters undivided half share in the suit house has been the cause of differences and disputes between the parties.

2. It is admitted by the defendant that, to begin with, he was a tenant of the whole of the suit house under the plaintiff who at that time is said to have acted on behalf of himself and of his brother Hanumantha Rao. Later on, however, it seems to be common ground that the defendant was a tenant only of the eastern portion of the house, which is referred to as portion A in the plan. It also appears from the evidence that for some years, up to 1925, the western portion was in the occupation of another tenant, but it is stated that the western portion was much less commodious and as it also got into disrepair it was apparently not continued to be occupied by anybody. The latest registered lease between the parties seems to have been entered int