The Chief Justice.-

These two appeals arise out of further proceedings in C.S. No. 115 of 1947, the main appeal (O.S.A. No. 102 of 1949) from which, we have just disposed of. As already mentioned, in this suit Sanjeevi claimed not only possession but also mesne profits, and Rajagopalan, J., directed that mesne profits should be ascertained by the Official Referee in proceedings subsequent to the decree. The Official Referee accordingly ascertained the msene profits and his report came up for consideration before Rajagopalan, J., who accepted the figures arrived at by the Official Referee and granted a decree to Sanjeevi for mesne profits on that basis by his order dated 2nd November, 1950. O.S.A. No. 133 of 1950 is by Chittibabu against the order. The main ground of appeal is that he is not liable in mesne profits as he must be deemed to be a tenant.

Sanjeevi filed an execution petition, E. P. No. 34 of 1950 for delivery of possession. Chittibabu raised the objection that notwithstanding the decree he was not liable to be evicted because of the provisions of S. 7(1) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1949. The Master before whom the execution petition came on for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document