1. The petitioner is a landholder against whom an application was preferred under Section 15 of Act IV of 1938. The main contention in revision is that the lower Court had no jurisdiction in an application under Section 15(4) of the Act to go into the question whether the applicant was entitled to any abatement of rent for non-possession of part of the lands in his holding or whether the applicant was entitled to any abatement of rent for failure of irrigation supply. The contention now put forward in revision is that the enquiry under Section 15 (4) must be confined to ascertaining what is the figure of rent according to the patta and whether that figure has been paid and that the Court is not entitled to go into subsidiary questions affecting liability for rent. No doubt in an ordinary case it would not be open to the Court under Section 15 (4) to entertain a plea which amounted in substance to an attempt to reduce the rent from that previously payable or even to entertain a plea which amounted to an attempt to repudiate liability for rent on the ground that irrigation works had not been repaired. Such pleas would not be available to the tenant in an ordinary suit For rent under the Madras Estates Land Act and therefore could not be urged in an application under Section 15 (4) of Act TV of 1938. But to the extent to which there are contentions open to the tenant affecting the amount of rent payable, the Court dealing with an application under Section 15 (4) necessarily has to go into those contentions in order to find out what is the amount of rent. The present case is peculiar in that the contract upon which the tenure is based itself provides for an abatement of rent in case there is any shortage in the extent in the possession of the tenant and for an abatement of rent in case there is any deficiency in the supply of water by the landholder to the tenant's holding. In the face of such clauses in the original patta it cannot be contended that the Court which has to decide what is the amount of rent can shut out contentions based on these clauses in the patta which contemplates fluctuations on certain grounds. There is nothing else in the revision petition which can be considered under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition is therefore dismissed with costs.