T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.

1. Both the tenant and the landlord aggrieved against the legality, regularity and propriety of the order of the learned District Judge of West Thanjavur, have filed these two revision petitions, the former being the one filed by the tenant and the latter by the landlord. It is unnecessary to repeat the entire facts which have been clearly stated by the learned District Judge in his order. Suffice it however to observe the relevant details.

2. The tenant, petitioner in C.R.P. No. 112 of 1965, was occupying the premises in question in its entirety from 1956. The premises, however, contained two distinct compartments, one the front portion thereof which was used for non-residential purposes, and the other the back portion which was at all times being used for residential purposes. In or about 1962, the tenant (petitioner in C.R.P. No. 112 of 1965, and respondent in C.R.P. No. 1620 of 1965) and the landlord (respondent in C.R.P. No. 112 of 1965, and petitioner C.R.P. No. 1620 of 1965) entered into an arrangement whereby the front portion which was delimited and delineated by mutual understanding, was to be demolished and reconstructed, and on such reconstr