JUDGMENT

NATARAJAN, J.:— A common judgment rendered by the High Court of Madras in a second appeal and memorandum of cross objections preferred by a lessor and lessee respectively and two connected civil revision petitions have given rise to this appeal by special leave by the tenant. The controversy in the appeal relates to the question whether the appellant is entitled to an order of court directing the sale of the leased site to him under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter the Act) at a value fixed by the Court. The answer to this question is dependent upon the Court finding whether the appellants tenancy rights are referable to the original lease in his favour or to an alleged new tenancy which is claimed by the respondent to have come into existence between the parties on 15-6-1966 and having effect from 25-5-1966.

2. We may now set out the facts of the case about which there is no controversy, and the history of the litigation between the parties. About 40 years prior to the institution of the suit O.S. No. 370/71 in the Court of District Munsif of Sattur the appellant had taken a vacant site on an oral lease from the vendor of the respondent on a rent of Rs. 60/p. a. The appellant put up super-structures on the leased site and was using the major portion of it for his residence and the smaller portion for his business of running a Soda Factory. The respondent purchased the vacant site from the previous owner on 9-2-1958 and the appellant attorned his tenancy to him. About 7 years later, the respondent filed a petition HRC No. 52/65, in the Court of the Rent Controller, Sattur, under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 for fixation of fair rent for the leased property. Though the said Act is not applicable to leases of vacant lands and sites the petition was entertained by the Rent Controller and no objection was raised by the appellant also. The parties however did not go for trial and instead they entered into a settlement and jointly endorsed on the petition that the fair rent may be fixed at Rs. 45/- per month with effect from the date of the petition viz. 24-5-1965. In terms of the joint endorsement the Rent Controller passed an order on 18-5-1966 fixing the rent for the leased site at Rs. 45/- per month with effect from 24-5-1965.

3. Six years later, the respondent filed a suit O.S. No. 370/71 in the Court of the District Munsif Sattur to seek the ejectment of the appellant from the leased site. The respondents case was that when the terms of tenancy were revised pursuant to the proceedings before the Rent Controller a new tenancy has come into existence between the parties and on that basis he had terminated the tenancy by due notice and the appellant should, therefore, surrender possession of the leased site to him after removing the super-structures on the land. The appellants defence was that the old tenancy continued to be in force and there was only an increase of the rent and no new tenancy had ever been created. His further case was that since he had been a lessee of the vacant site before the Government extended the Madras City Tenants Protection Act to Sivasaki Municipality by G.O.M.S. No. 2736 Revenue dated 19-7-1956, he was entitled to the benefits conferred by the Act and retain his possession without being ejected. Consistent with such a defence he filed a petition O.P. No. 8 of 1971 under Section 9(l) of the Act praying for the Court to fix the value of the site and to direct the respondent to sell the same to him at the said value.

4. It is relevant to mention here that the Government extended the Madras City Tenants Protection Act to Sivasaki Munipality, within the limits of which the suit site is situate by a Government Order G.O.Ms. No. 2736 Revenue dated 19-7-1926. This Act was enacted in 1922 in order "to give protection to certain classes of tenants in municipal towns and adjoining areas in the State of Tamil Nadu." The Act was originally made applicable to th