Both the appeals relate to the same subject-matter and raise the question whether the 1st respondent in C.M.A. No.87 of 1953 (4th respondent in C.M.A. No.88 of 1953) can invoke the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XV of 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The background of this litigation is this: The property involved in these appeals, a cinemahall originally belonged to a family which consisted of Anjayya and his three sons. Anjayya was adjudged an insolvent in I.P. No.36 of 1930 and the insolvent’s estate was vested in the Official Receiver on 4th January, 1932. In the course of the administration of the estate, the Official Receiver sold the property involved in "these appeals along with some other items and it was purchased by the father of the 1st appellant in C.M.A. No.87 of 1953 (and the appellant in C.M.A. No.88 of 1953). Subsequently one of the sons of the insolvent filed a suit O.S. No.35 of 1940 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Masulipatam, for partition and separate possession of his one-fourth share on the ground that the Official Receiver’s sale did not bind his share. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court but was decreed on appeal by this Court. Pending the passing of the final decree, the plaintiff in the suit applied to the Court in I.A. No.1217 of 1948 for the appointment of a Receiver to take possession of the cinema-hall and lease it out for a period of one year and to deposit the amount in Court. The following order was passed on that application:

"Both sides are willing to have an auction of the cinema-hall (excluding articles claimed in O.S. No.70 of 1947) to the highest bidder. Advertise in Krishna Patrika that auction will be held on 7th October, 1948, before the Principal Subordinate Judge. Petitioner may make the aforesaid advertisement. Hearing adjourned to 7th October, 1948".

On the adjourned date bids for the lease-hold interest for one year from 1st November, 1948, were taken before the Court and it was knocked down in favour of the 1st respondent who happened to be the highest bidder for Rs.8,100 and the interlocutory application was allowed. On 26th October, 1948, a further order was passed.

"As it is now represented that further directions are necessary, the following is issued:

The purchaser of lease-hold interest may take possession of the hall from 1st November, 1948. and may run the cinema subject to rules ".

It now appears that the lessee could get possession of the property only a few months later as it was in a state of dis-repair and that he had to spend some money to effect the necessary repairs.

When the lease was about to expire, the appellants moved the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam by I.A. No.1278 of 1949 to appoint a Receiver to auction the lease-hold rights of the property involved in these appeals for the year 1949-50. This was opposed by the 1st respondent, inter alia, on the ground that he was entitled to the benefits of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Overruling these objections of the 1st respondent, a Receiver was appointed. This order was set aside on appeal by this Court and the petition was remanded for fresh disposal. One of the questions which the trial Court was directed to decide was whether the Rent Control Act applied or not. Subsequently I.A. No.732 of 1951 was filed for a relief similar to the one in I.A. No.1278 of 1949 for the succeeding year namely from 1st November, 1950, to 1st November, 1951. The opposition to this was based on the same grounds as in the earlier application. The learned Subordinate Judge agreed with applicability of the Madras Buildings (Lease and. Rent Control) Act and dismissed the applications. It is these orders that are now Under appeal.

The view of the learned Subordinate Judge is canvassed by the appellants. In support of these appeals, it was first urged that the provisions of the Act do not apply to this case as the respondent had taken the p