Happell, J.

1. This criminal revision petition is against the order passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Chingleput under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in M.C. No. 34 of 1943. The petitioner in the present case was the petitioner in that case. The leanaed Additional First Oass Magistrate found that the tenants of the petitioner were in possession. He considered however that he was unable to make an order declaring the petitioner to be in possession until evicted in due course of law because the tenants and not the landlord were in actual possession and because the tenants were not parties to the petition for this view of the law he relied on the decision of Pandrang Row, J., in Rama Raju v. Jagannath Rao. It is true that in that case Pandrang Row, J., refused to accept the contention that the tenants actual possession is the landlords actual possession and held that the first respondent in the case before him, even though his tenants were in possession, would not be entitled to a declaration in his favour. With great respect, however, it does not seem that a decision on this point was "entirety necessary to a decision of the case. The first resp