These are related appeals by the plaintiff and the defendants respectively in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, damages for use and occupation, and possession through ejectment. The suit was decreed with costs as prayed for., The plaintiff (landlord) purports to be aggrieved by the decree which is not in respect of the entire land according to the plaint schedule, but is specifically limited to the 5 or 6 huts thereon occupied by the defendants. The defendants (tenants) claimed to be aggrieved by the decree in ejectment, which totally ignores the provisions of the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act (Act III of 1922 as modified by Act XIX of 1955) and particularly the rights given to tenants under sections 3 and 11 of that Act. These related appeals thus raise the following issues: (i) whether the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921 (Act III of 1922) applies to the present case, either as it stood, or as amended by Madras Act XIX of 1955; (ii) whether, if the Act is applicable, the decree in ejectment can be supported, when the landlord admittedly failed to comply with the provisions of section 11 of the Act, and when section 3 of the Act has also not been co