Appellant, Walker, was not entitled to possession of the premises at the time he instituted the forcible detainer proceedings unless appellee, Cosgrove, had violated the rental contract by failing to make repairs, or, to pay dhe rents in accordance with its terms. As the property was in bad shape and the drainage pipes were in a dilapidated condition at the time appellee, Cosgrove, leased the place from Perkins, we do not think he was obligated under his contract to restore the water pipe. It was at the rear of the house leading from the gutter to the ground. It was not the duty of the tenant to add a drain pipe where none had been before, or to make new one that had decayed and was useless at the time he went into possession, but only to make ordinary repairs such as resulted and were made necessary by and from reasonable use of the premises. Moreover, we consider this claim of appellant Walker as an afterthought. He did not demand possession of the premises when he first purchased the place but only an increase of rental, and when the tenant did not consent to pay the increased rate appellant fell upon' a plan to oust him from possession by asserting that be had violated his contract partly in order, no doubt, to compel Cosgrove, as tenant, to pay the increased rental. This is all borne out by the letters which passed between Walker and Cosgrove and their representatives. There is likewise no merit in appellant Walker’s claim that the appellee, Cosgrove, failed to pay the rents upon the first of the month. He either paid or offered to pay the rents as they fell due, and Walker declined to receive the cheeks because they were for $60.00 instead of $125.00. From the evidence, as we find it in the record, we are not surprised that the jury in the magistrate’s court .found against appellant, *771