Expression "Tenant" - Meaning of.

S. Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. The legal representatives of the deceased original plaintiff are the appellants in the second appeal. The respondents are the successors in right, title and interest of the original defendants. I do not propose to dwell in ex ten so over the factual details of the controversy since I am inclined to remit the matter back for a fresh consideration to the lower appellate court taking note of a point of law advanced by Mr. M.R. Narayanaswami, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. However, certain broad facts need delineation.

2. The suit property being a site was the subject-matter of a demise by way of a lease by the plaintiff to and in favour of the first defendant. That lease was duly determined and on such determination the plaintiff laid the suit for recovery of possession and for damages for use and occupation. The contesting defendants would resist the claim for recovery of possession and would plead that they would be entitled to protection under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (Act III of 1922), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. There was an independent application taken out by the second defendant under Section 9 of the Act to direct the plaintiff to sell the entire suit site for a price to be fixed by the Court. This application was resisted by the plaintiff and in the additional counter it was contended that the suit site has been sublet to one N.P.S. Shanmugam Pillai on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- and the sub tenancy is in existence for the past more than 20 years and therefore, the application under Section 9 of the Act is not maintainable in law. The import of the plea is to state that the tenant is out of possession. There was a rejoinder to this plea of the plaintiff and both the Counsel admit that the first court has correctly summed up the substance of this rejoinder in its judgment and the summing up runs in the following terms:

The allegation that the petitioner has sublet the premises to the firm N.P.S. Shanmugam Pillai on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- is wholly false and untenable. The said firm N.P.S. Shanmugam Pillai are only dealers of the products of the petitioners at the suit site. The relationship between the defendant and the said firm is not one of chief tenant and sub-tenant and their relationship is governed by a dealership agreement in regard to supply of products.

Further a licence agreement regarding grant of leave and licence to use the suit site for the purpose of the said business and for using the superstructure and a licence to use the facilities put up by the petitioner/defendant on the premises also for the said business has been made. The said party has no rights in and over the suit property. But the petitioner only, has got the tenancy rights and the other rights. No amount is also paid by the firm N.P.S. Shanmugam Pillai as rent. The said firm has under the licence agreement to pay a sum of Rs. 125/- per month as licence fee in consideration of the permission granted by the petitioner for the use of the premises and superstructure for the purpose of selling the products of the petitioner. Further in addition to this, they have to pay a sum of Rs. 50/- per month for using the facilities provided by the petitioner for the same purpose and therefore it is not correct to state that the firm N.P.S. Shanmugam Pillai pays a monthly rent of Rs. 200 to the petitioner. There is also no subtenancy in favour of the said firm. Further subsequently the said firm have been only dealers of the petitioner's products for about 25 years by virtue of dealership agreement and licence agreement. Further the application filed by the petitioner is perfectly maintainable and they are entitled to receive compensation for the superstructure put up by them and there is also no question of any subtenancy and therefore the petitioner is entitled to claim the rights under Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act and the said rights also cannot be defeated.

3. B