ORDER.- The petitioner made an application under section 3 (4) (a) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act for the eviction of the respondents. The first respondent was the lessee. The grounds for eviction were that the first respondent had defaulted in the payment of rent and had also sub-leased the land to the remaining respondents. The learned Assistant Collector found that the first respondent had in tact sub-leased the land to the other respondents. Having so found he proceeded to hold that since the first respondent had ceased to cultivate the lands he was no longer a cultivating tenant and hence was not amenable to any action under the Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act. In the case of the other respondents they being only sublessees he held they were not cultivating tenants to evict whom the petitioner should take proceedings in the civil Court. It is against this order that the landlord has moved this Court in revision. In so far as the order of the Assistant Collector in relation to the sub-lessees, is concerned that is perfectly correct. No relief as against them is available to the landlord under the above mentioned Act. But in so far as the relief that was asked for against the first respondent is concerned, it seems to me that the learned Assistant Collector has misread the provisions of the Act. That the first respondent has rendered himself liable to eviction under section 3 (2) (b) of the Act is beyond question. But just for the reason that he no longer cultivates the land he cannot escape the jurisdiction of the Court in so far as his status as cultivating tenant is concerned. Quite obviously he was a cultivating tenant when he took lease of the lands and by reason of violating certain of the provisions of the Act, he has brought himself within the scope of those provisions which entail eviction. He does not for the sole reason that he has sub-leased the lands cease to be a cultivating tenant not amenable to the processes of the Act. The sub-leasing of the lands is an act which comes within the scope of section 3 (2) (b) of the Act entailing the eviction of the lessee. He does not for the sole reason that he has sub-leased the lands cease to be a cultivating tenant not amenable to the processes of the Act. The sub-leasing of the lands is an act which comes within the scope of section 3 (2) (b) of the Act entailing the eviction of the lessee. The section having provided that an act of this kind would entail eviction, under sub-section 4 (a) a person becoming so liable shall be directed to be evicted by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Notwithstanding that a person ceased to cultivate the lands by reason of such sub-lease he does not go outside the scope of the operation of sub-sections 4 (a) and 4 (b). Learned Assistant Collector was wrong in holding that because he did not cultivate the lands he was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further claimed that the first resondent had admitted that he was in arrears of rent. That was also one of the grounds upon which the petition for eviction was founded. But the learned Assistant Collector has naturally enough made no directions with regard to the rent. It is obvious that the Act only contains certain enabling provisions with regard to the arrears of rent in the sense that if the tenant is willing to deposit the arrears the Court can accept such deposit and pass orders consequently thereupon dismissing the petition for eviction, it such petition is based on the ground of default in the payment of rent. But the Court cannot pass a decree, as it were, for the recovery of arrears of rent. I am not able to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court has tailed to consider the landlord’s claim for the arrears. Even if an order for eviction is passed on the ground of arrears of rent, solely on the basis of the order made by the Revenue Court the landlord cannot realise the arrears. In the result the order of the Assistant Collector is set aside. There will instead be an order of eviction of the first respondent under section 3 (4) (b) of the Act No order as to costs. R.M. --------------- Petition allowed.