Horwill J.-The plaintiffs, who were the owners or lessees of a picture house, sued to evict from it the defendants, who were partners of the third defendant in the conducting of the cinema business in the picture house. The defendants resisted the suit mainly on the ground that they were entitled under Act XV of 1946 (the Madras Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act) to remain in possession since they satisfied the definition of “tenants” found in section 2(4) of that Act. They had no lease deed in their favour; but they sought to support their claim by contending that by virtue of the partnership, they had entered into with the lessee (the third plaintiff) with the express consent of the first plaintiff, there was either an equitable assignment of the lease (Exhibit A-6) by the third plaintiff in favour of the partnership of themselves and the third plaintiff or that this lease in favour of the third plaintiff must be regarded as a lease to the partnership. These and other points were considered by the learned District Judge and decided in favour of the plaintiffs. A further important issue in the suit was with regard to the quantum of damages to which the plaintiffs were enti