Beasley, C.J.

1. The plaintiff in this suit although ordered to be served with notice on the former occasion of this petition has not appeared and therefore I have heard an ex party argument. If there was any argument to be advanced on his side, it is his own fault that such an argument has not been presented. It is sufficient for me to say that the contention of the petitioner here seems to me to be quite sound and in the absence of any argument to the contrary I shall uphold that contention.

2. Shortly the facts are that the petitioner is defendant 1 and he took a lease of the suit property for five years in 1928 from defendant 2 who was the owner of it. In 1931 the lease was cancelled and id appears that the petitioner then surrendered possession. The plaintiff gob a decree against defendant 2 and in execution of that decree brought six acres of the property to sale. The sale was not confirmed at once because there was an application to set it aside presented by defendant 2 which was dismissed by the first Court and the dismissal of that application was affirmed on appeal on 31st January 1933 and the sale was then confirmed. The suit which is one for arrears of rent was filed