This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal involves a question of some degree of interest and importance, upon the application of sections 3 and 9 of the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act to the facts of the case. The question, in brief, is whether a tenant who has admittedly contravened the terms of the lease which included a prohibition upon erecting a superstructure, is entitled to claim compensation for the building under section 3 and in consequence, to claim the statutory option under section 9 for purchase of the land. This particular point does not appear to have been decided by authority, so far, though, as I shall presently indicate there a e dicta in two Bench decisions of this Court in support of the interpretation that the tenant can so claim rights under the Act, notwithstanding the fact, that, technically speaking, he (the tenant) is a tort-feasor whom the landlord is entitled to restrain by a suitable injunction. The facts necessary for an appreciation of this question, and the single other related question involved in this appeal, are as follows.

The appellant here is the plaintiff in the suit, and the appellant in the first Court, who sued for recovery of possess