In Re: K.P.R. Kolandiappa Mudalias

Ramaswami, J.—There are no merits in these revision petitions because when under the terms of a compromise the principal tenant had agreed to vacate the premises and when the principal tenant owing to his sub-tenant being in the premises could not at that stage give khas possession but only symbolical possession, it does not mean that the landlord is not entitled to get the sub tenant physically evicted under that order. It was not open to the sub-tenant to resist the eviction. The reason is this. A sub-tenant is not protected will be evident from the following extract from page 123 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, by Messrs. R. Mathurbhutham and R. Srinivasan M. L. J. Edition 1955.

Under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, a sub-tenant as such is not recognized and if a landlord brings a suit in adjustment a sub-tenant let into possession cannot raise any question and submit that he has a status under the Act which should be safeguarded by its provisions :

Where the plaintiff let a vacant site to the first defendant who built on it and let in his turn to the third defendant and a compromise was arrived at by which plaintiff was empowered to purchase first defendant''s rights, on the question whether the third defendant could resist the plaintiff on the ground that he was a lessee of the plaintiff, Held : that whatever rights the third defendant might have against the first defendant could not affect the rights of the plaintiff So far as the plaintiff was concerned the third defendant did not exist at all and any decree binding on the first defendant would be binding on the third defendant, Devaraja Bhatt Vs. V.S. Raja and Others,

The right given by 8. 7 (1) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, is expressly given to the tenant and the definition of ''tenant'' in 3. 2 (4) of the Act does not include a person placed in occupation of a building by its tenant, 8. 7 Devaraja Bhatt Vs. V.S. Raja and Others, cannot on a proper construction apply to a sub-tenant and confer rights on him and he cannot get the benefit indirectly on the ground that he claims under the tenant. The Explanation added by Act VIII of 1950 does not alter the position : Express Estates Ltd. v. Modern Furnishing House AIR 1953 Mad. 414=66 L.W. 68.

In fact S. 12-C has now been included in the Act and it runs as follows :

Any order for the eviction of a tenant passed under this Act shall be binding on all sub tenants under such tenant, whether they were parties to the proceeding or not provided such order was not obtained by fraud or collusion.

There is ho allegation either apparent or made out that the order of eviction was obtained by fraud or Collusion. The symbolical posses lion to be given by the principal tenant includes the khas possession and so far as sub-tenant actually occupying the premises are concerned. The sum of the order obtained by the landlord is eviction of the tenant-principal taking in the subtenant and the taking over of posses Simon of his own premises The order is certainly binding on the revision petitioner who is a sub tenant Therefore the order of the learned City Civil Judge is irreproachable These revision petitions are dismissed.