Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.
1. In this case the plaintiffs hired out a grass-press to the defendants at the rate of Rs. 22 a month. They complain that the defendants did not pay the rent, nor did they return the Press. The defendants on the other hand said that the Press was not in working order, and that they had spent some money in repairs, that still it could not be used and, therefore, they had to get a Press from another man. The Judge dismissed the suit, and has found as a fact that the Press would not work. The only question was whether the detention of the Press by the defendants would involve them in liability. He considered that owing to the express conduct of the defendants they were not liable. That was not a very satisfactory way of dealing with the question about which it is somewhat difficult to find authority. A bailee for hire is ordinarily bound to return the article hired at the end of the period for which it is hired. But the Indian Contract Act says nothing as to what is to happen if it is found that the article is not fit to be used for the purpose for which it was hired. No doubt there is an implied warranty when an article is hired out for use that it is fit to be used for that purpose, and if there is a breach of warranty then there is no liability to pay the hire. The question is whether a bailee can leave the article where it is and give notice to the bailor that there is a breach of warranty, or whether he is bound to return it to the bailor. However, there is a ease on this question, Chew v. v. Jones (1847) 10 L.T. 231, in which an opinion was expressed by the Court that if a man hired a horse for the purpose of a journey, then there was a warranty that the horse was fit for the journey, and if it was found out that the horse was not fit for the journey and broke down then the bailee was entitled to leave the horse at the nearest stable and give notice to the owner that he had done so. From that it may be deduced that all that the bailee is bound to do is to give notice that there has been a breach of the warranty. This the defendants did, and as the Judge has found that there was a breach of warranty, therefore they were not liable. The rule must be discharged with costs.