JUDGMENT

KANIA, J. :— This is an Appeal from the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court in, Second Appeal No. 1706 of 1985 and C.R.P. (Civil Revision Petition) No. 3135 of 1985 which were heard together. For the sake of convenience we propose to refer to the parties by their original descriptions in the suit.

2. The plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land, including a vacant site in Elappan Road in Cumbum in Madras. This site was leased out by the plaintiffs (Respondents before us), to defendant No. 1(who is Appellant No. 1before us) for conducting a timber shop. at a rent of Rs. 70/- per month. In a family partition, the first plaintiff (who is Respondent No. 1 before us) got as his share the northern portion of the land belonging to the plaintiffs which included the suit land. The plaintiffs filed a suit to evict the defendants on various grounds including the ground that they wanted to build their own house on the suit land and hence bona fide needed the suit land for their own use. Thereafter, the defendants filed an application under, Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, (referred to hereinafter as "the said Act"). On 28th April, 1979, the plaintiffs sent a notice dated 27th April, 1979 to the defendants terminating the tenancy and calling upon them to surrender the suit land by 31st May, 1979, failing which a suit for ejectment would be filed. It may be noticed here that during the subsistence of the lease, the defendants put up certain superstructures on the suit land. The plaintiffs filed a suit in the Trial Court for eviction of the defendants. The defendants, on the other hand, filed an application under Section 9 of. the said Act within 30 days of the receipt of the summons in the said suit, praying for a direction to the plaintiffs, to sell the vacant land to the defendants, and basing their claim on the ground that they were entitled to the protection of the said Act. The Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for eviction and for possession and dismissed the application filed by the defendants under section 9 of the said Act on the ground that the defendants were not tenants as contemplated under Section 2(4)(i) of the said Act. Being aggrieved by this decision in the suit as well as their application, the defendants filed an appeal against the same in the Sub-Court of Periyakulam. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the defendants against the decree in the suit. holding that no proper statutory notice under Section I I of the said Act had been issued by the plaintiffs as the landlords before filing the suit. but they dismissed the application of the defendants under Section 9 of the said Act on the ground that the defendants were not the tenants as contemplated under Section 2(4)(i) of the said Act. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit in appeal, the plaintiffs preferred a Second Appeal to the Madras High Court and the defendants, being aggrieved by the dismissal of their application under Section 9 of the said Act, preferred a Civil Revision Petition against that order. Both these matters were disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court by the judgment impugned before us. The appeal of the plaintiffs was allowed and the C.R.P. preferred by the defendants was dismissed. The present appeal bas been preferred by the defendants against the said judgment.

3. The first submission of Mrs. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the Appellants is that Appellant No. 1is a tenant in relation to the suit land as contemplated in clause (I) of sub-section (4) of Section 2, the definition section, of the said Act. In the alternative, it was submitted by her that even assuming that he was not a tenant within the meaning of Section 2(4)(i) of the said Act, he was still covered by the inclusive definition of the term "tenant" given in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (ii) of sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the said Act. The opening part of Section