Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The cases cited by Mr. Nambiar, granting that they have been correctly decided, are easily distinguishable. His contention amounts to this: that a lessee can in a suit for rent claim abatement, however trifling or trivial the deterioration is, that the leased property has undergone. Not one of the cases cited by him lends support to this doctrine. He strongly relies upon the observations of Sir Bernes Peacock, C.J. in two old Calcutta decisions Afsurooddeen v. Mt. Shorooshee Bula Dabee 1863 Marsh 558 and Sheikh Enayetoolah v. Sheikh Elahea Buksh 1864 WR Act 10. In both of them the abatement was allowed on the ground that a portion of the property leased was washed away. The learned Chief Justice makes the following observation:

We think that the rule is founded on the principles of natural justice and equity, that if a landlord let his land at a certain rent to be paid during the period of occupation, and the land is, by the act of God, put in such a state that the tenant cannot enjoy, the tenant is entitled to an abatement.

2. The two cases to which I have referred were decided in 1863 and 1864 respectively. Sir Bernes Peacock, C.J. quotes with approval t