Horwill, J - (1.)The suit out of which this second appeal arises was one in ejectment and for rent. The lessees were defendants 1 and 2 but they sub-leased the land to other defendants, who cut down trees and so entitled the landlord, according to the terms of the lease, to demand certain sums for those trees. So the claim became one for rent and for the value of the trees cut. Against that claim, the tenants, under Section 5 of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, are entitled to improvements. Section 6 permits of a set off being made, the landlord, upon eviction, receiving the difference between the rent and the improvements.
(2.)The trial Court found that a number of trees had been cut; and the Commissioner valued those trees. It permitted the plaintiff to set off the total damages against the total improvements; but the lower appellate Court held that the persons who committed the damage were solely responsible for the acts committed by them, and so, while it permitted the plaintiff to set off against the improvements to be given to those particular sub-tenants the value of the damages committed by them, it refused to give the plaintiff a decree against his tenants, defendants 1 and 2, for the damages committed by sub-tenants. It is against this modification of the decree that the arguments in appeal have been directed.
(3.)The second defendant has filed a Memorandum of Cross-objections in which he contends that the plaintiff was not entitled to bring a suit at all; because he had granted a melcharth to the 24 defendant, who alone was entitled to bring a suit. The 2nd defendant has also questioned the scale on which damages were awarded.