ORDER :- A suit on the small cause side of the court of the Munsiff-Magistrate of Hosdrug has given rise to the Civil Revision petition, the plaintiff being the petitioner. The suit was for arrears of rent from 30th Kaimi 1133 to 30th Kanni 1134. The defendants main contention was that he was entiled to abatement of rent due to silting up of a portion of the property covered by the lease. The lower Court issued a commission to assess the extent of the silting and finally accepting the plea of the defendant it held that the correct rent payable was only 361/2 paras of paddy in two instalments of 181/4 paras each and not 75 paras as claimed by the plaintiff. A decree was also granted on that basis. 2. In revision the learned advocate of the petitioner raises two points: (1) that the same plea of abatement was raised in a proceeding before the Rent Court for fixation of fair rent, which petition was not pursued to conclusion and (2) that the small cause court had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for apportionment of rent. Regarding the first point, I am of opinion, that the tenants remedy by way of abatement is independent of his statutory right to have the fair rent fixed. If fair rent has already been fixed and if a portion of the property is silted up, the tenant is entitled to abatement even of the fair rent in proportion to the extent silted up to the extent included in the lease. Similarly, if here has been no fixation of fair rent and there is silting, the tenant is entitled to abatement and he is entitled to claim such abatement from the contract rent. That right to claim abatement he has not lost by not pursuing his remedy under the Malabar Tenancy Act before the Rent Court by way of an application for fixation of fair rent. Therefore the first point has no force. 3. Coming to the second point, it was the plaintiff who brought the suit on the small cause side of the lower court and the defendant raised the claim for abatement. If the plaintiff questioned the jurisdiction of the small cause court to apportion rent, he should have moved for a transfer of the suit to the original side. 3. Coming to the second point, it was the plaintiff who brought the suit on the small cause side of the lower court and the defendant raised the claim for abatement. If the plaintiff questioned the jurisdiction of the small cause court to apportion rent, he should have moved for a transfer of the suit to the original side. Now that the lower court has considered the suit on merits and has given a decision, the High Court in revision is not bound to upset that decision, merely because the lower Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. In a recent decision in Padmanbhan v. M. P. Lekshmi Pillai, C.R.P. No.1075 of 1959 I have considered two decisions of the Madras High Court and the Andhra Pradrsh High Court respectively and following them have held that the High Court will not interfere in revision in a case, where the lower court wrongly tried an original suit on its small cause side or a small case suit on its original side, if the decision of the trial court is otherwise right, merely because the lower court lacked in jurisdiction for such trial. Therefore the second point also has no force. 4. Regarding the extent silted up and the proportion regarding abatement, the learned counsel rightly concedes that he will not be justified in canvassing the correctness of the findings of the lower court in revision. The only two points raised having failed the Civil Revision Petition also fails and is dismissed with costs. Revision dismissed.