Order.- This Revision is directed against the order under section 33 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. On the application of the tenant in H.R.C. No. 908 of 1962 the Rent Controller directed the restoration of certain amenities, a kitchen and a pathway. There was an appeal therefrom in H. R. A. No. 661 of 1962 and the appellate Court upheld the order of the Rent Controller and found that the respondent was entitled to the restoration of the amenities, namely, the kitchen and the pathway, taken away from the tenant by the landlord. The appeal was dismissed, the judgment being pronounced on the 8th July, 1963. That order has become final and has not been the subject of any subsequent challenge. The present proceedings have been initiated by the tenant under section 33 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The defence is a denial of disobedience. The learned Sixth Presidency Magistrate went into the question whether the present petitioner had disobeyed the orders and contravened the provisions of section 17 of the Act and found that: the denial was not maintainable on the evidence and that the present petitioner was guilty under section 33 of the Act. It may be stated that the main defence, which was only in argument, was that there was no finding in the earlier proceedings before the Rent Controller that the accused had cut off the amenities without just or sufficient cause. But this contention is not open in the present proceedings. That order has become final. The very defence of the petitioner that the original order was not justified confirms the complaint that there has been disobedience of the order passed by the Rent Controller under section 17 (1). The petitioner even here seeks to maintain that the claim by the tenant was not for amenities to the restoration of which he was entitled. It being not open to the petitioner in these proceedings to go behind the order and contend that there was no cutting off, of the amenities, learned Counsel next raised a point that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under section 33 (1) of the Act. It being not open to the petitioner in these proceedings to go behind the order and contend that there was no cutting off, of the amenities, learned Counsel next raised a point that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under section 33 (1) of the Act. The point made is that section 33 of the Act, Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XVIII of 1960 refers only to the contravening of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 17 or of an order under sub-section (3) of section 17 of the Act. It is argued that as admittedly there was no order under sub-section (3) of section 17 and there being no reference to an order under section 17 (4) in section 33, the prosecution for non-compliance with an order under section 17 (4), is untenable. It is overlooked that section 17 (1) is the section entitling the tenant to the continuance of the amenities. Sub-section (4) of section 17 provides for an order for the restoration of the amenities if the amenities are cut off or withheld by the landlord without just or sufficient cause. The result of noncompliance with order under sub-section (4) is conclusive evidence that the amenities which the tenant was entitled to under section 17(1) were unlawfully cut off. An order under section 17 (4) being there, and it being clear from the defence itself that there has been no restoration of the amenities pursuant to the order if follows that the landlord has contravened section 17 (1) of the Act. This entitles the tenant to seek relief under section 33 of the Act for punishing the landlord. The question of jurisdiction also therefore fails. The petitioner has misconceived her rights and, in the circumstances, I reduce the fine to a sum of Rs. 50. With this modification m the sentence, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Time for payment of fine two weeks. V.S. ----- Petition dismissed.