Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.

1. The Appellants here were defend ants 3, 5, 6, 8 and 12 to 26 in the suit. Defendants 3 to 26 are members of. a tarwad to whom the 1st Defendant sub-leased the suit lands. The plaintiff sited to recover possession of the suit lands.

2. The point for consideration is one which arises out of Section 6 of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act (I of 1900). The appellants, being sub-tenants and the plaintiff having succeeded in his suit for ejectment, claimed compensation for improvements under Section 5 of the same Act. The question here is whether the 1st respondent, the plaintiff in the suit, is entitled to set off any money due to him for rent in respect of the tenancy against the sum found due to the tenants for compensation. It is contended for the appellants that they are the sub-tenants of the 1st defendant and have paid rent to him and that there is, therefore, nothing due in respect of rent from them to the 1st respondent. In the lower Appellate Court it was held that on a construction of Section 6 the appellants contention must fail and accordingly the landlords (1st Respondents) claim for a set off in respect of