Appeal against the order of dismissal of application held maintainable.

This Civil Revision Petition arises at the instance of the tenant against whom a decree has been passed in a suit for eviction. In 1917, the respondent granted a lease of a property, a land, for certain agricultural purposes to the petitioner. After the termination of the lease the respondent filed a suit for eviction of the tenant in O.S. No. 283 of 1945. The tenant set up various defences, namely, a denial of the title of the plaintiff, want of proper notice to quit, etc. It is significant that there was no plea claiming that the tenant was entitled to the benefits of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act. A decree for ejectment was passed on 20th August, 1946. An appeal was filed against that decree to this Court which failed. That decree was further confirmed in the Letters Patent Appeal and the proceedings finally terminated on 23rd March, 1950, when the tenant was given one year’s time to vacate the land. An application for delivery of possession was thereafter filed in E.P. No. 1403 of 1951. While that application was pending a suit was filed by a third party for an injunction to restrain the landlord from executing the decree but the suit was dismissed on 20th May, 1954. The pendency of the suit resulted in the dismissal of E.P.|No. 1403 of 1951 evidently for statistical reasons. The landlord thereupon filed E.P. No. 157 of 1955 for obtaining delivery. Delivery was ordered on 29th September, 1955. In the meantime the Madras City Tenants Protection Act III of 1922 was amended by the Madras Act XIX of 1955 and the amended enactment came into force on 10th September, 1955. Under the Act as amended the benefits of the earlier Act were made available to tenants who had put up buildings on the demised lands before coming into force of the Madras Act XIX of 1955. Taking advantage of the provisions of the Act the tenant, namely, the present petitioner filed C.M.P. No. 1693 of 1955 on 5th October, 1955, in the lower Court stating that he had a shed put up on the land after the decree, that he was entitled to the benefits of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act and that the land should be sold to him under section 9 of the Act. This was contested by the landlord on various grounds. The learned Assistant Judge cum Registrar of the City Civil Court, Madras, held that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits of the Madras Act XIX of 1955 and dismissed the application. The tenant seeks to revise that order in this petition. This Civil Revision Petition is sought to be filed under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Under that section the High Court can entertain a revision against the order of a subordinate Court only in a case where there is no appeal provided under the law. The question, therefore, is whether there is a right of appeal against the order of the lower Court which held that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act. It is necessary in this connection to refer to certain provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act. Under the general law if a tenant puts up any building or structure on a demised land the tenant has got to remove the superstructure after the tenancy is determined and deliver vacant possession of the land to the landlord. The Madras City Tenants Protection Act III of 1922 was intended to protect the tenants who had constructed buildings on the lands leased out to them in the hope that they would not be evicted. Originally it applied only to tenancies created in the City of Madras before 8th February, 1922, that is before coming into force of that Act. That Act has been amended by the Madras Act XIX of 1955 which applied the beneficial provisions of the Act to the tenancies prior to the coming into force of the Amending Act, namely, 10th September, 1955 and also to places beyond the limits of the Madras City, viz., specified villages within five miles of the City of Madras, or such municipal towns which are notified by the G