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