1. This was a suit brought under Clause (b) of Section 93 of the Rent Act (No. XII of 1881) to eject an occupancy tenant from his holding on the ground that he had committed an act detrimental to the land in his occupation and inconsistent with the purposes for which it was let. The act complained of was that in the month of October, when, according to the learned Judge of the Lower Appellate Court, there were no crops on the land, and none could have been grown, the defendants had let the land to a theatrical company for erecting a temporary pavilion for the purpose of their theatre. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit, and I think rightly. The act was not detrimental to the land or inconsistent with the purpose for which it was let, within the meaning of Clause (6). The tenant, having at a time when the land could not be sown with crops let it to a theatrical company for the purpose of a theatre for a short period only, did not do an act detrimental to the land, and although, technically speaking, they did an act inconsistent with the purpose for which it was let, namely, cultivation, it does not seem to me that the Legislature contemplated that a tenancy would be liable to forfeiture if the tenant did an act of this kind for a temporary purpose only, at a time when the land in the tenant's holding could not be cultivated. It is evident from the provisions of Section 149, as the learned Judge has pointed out, that the Legislature intended to give a tenant a locus paenitentiae and an opportunity to repair the damage done by him. In this case at the time when the Court of First Instance made its decree the land had been restored to its former condition and crops had been grown on it. The Courts below have, in my judgment, rightly held that the defendant's act did not entail the forfeiture of their occupancy holding. I dismiss the appeal, but without costs, as the respondents are not represented.