A firm assessed to tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act (9 of 1939) must be proceeded against and prosecuted for non-payment of tax, and not individual partners.

JUDGMENT :- Suit (a) for ejectment and delivery of vacant possession of the suit premises inclusive of the equipment, machinery, fittings and furniture as detailed in schedules 1 and 2 of the plaint in the same condition in which they were at the time when the defendants were put in possession subject to natural wear and tear; (b) for payment of Rs. 3362-10-0 being the difference in Corporation Tax paid by the plaintiff and of for payment as mesne profits or damages for use and occupation a sum of Rs. 2,700/- from 1-3-1953 upto the date of filing the suit at Rs. 150/- per day and similar mesne profits at the same rate from date of plaint till date of delivery of possession and (d) for costs.

2. The case for the plaintiff is : The plaintiff is the owner of the premises known as Roxy Theatre at, Purasawalkam High Road, Madras. It was leased out to the defendants under a lease deed dated 17-4-1346 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1500 for the Talkie premises and a hire of Rs. 250/- per month for the moveables talkie equipment, furniture and fittings. The lease got determined on 21-10-1919.

But the defendants continued to occupy the theatre and make use of the machinery even after the expiry of the lease on the foot that they were there as statutory tenants under the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and intimated the plaintiff to this effect. Then the plaintiff moved the State of Madras and by G.O. No. Ms. 270 dated 2-2-1953 the Government exempted the theatre from the operation of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act.

This notification of exemption was published at page 187 of the Fort St. George Gazette dated 11-2-1953. The plaintiff after receipt of the order of the Government exempting the building from the operation of the Rent Control Act, issued notice to the defendants on 6-2-1953 terminating the lease with effect from the expiry of 28-2-1953. It is in these circumstances that the plaintiff has filed this suit for the reliefs mentioned above.

3. The defendants case is that the exemption granted by the Government is not valid and they have no power to grant the exemption. The next objection taken is that the notice to quit issued on 6-2-1953 was received by the defendant on 7-2-1953 while the order exempting building was published in the Fort St. George Gazette only on 11-2-1953 and therefore the notice is invalid. Thirdly, the defendants contend that the claim for mesne profits at Rs. 150/- per diem is exorbitant.

Finally, in regard to the claim for excess property tax, the claim of Rs. 57-8-0 per half year as Library Cess is admitted by the defendants and the claim for excess property tax before the period exempting the building from the operation of the Act is disputed on the ground that it would constitute a premium forbidden to be received from a tenant and the claim for excess property tax after the period of exemption is disputed on the ground that as the State Government has no power to grant the exemption the defendants are not tenants holding over but statutory tenants under the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act and therefore any such claim would be in the nature of a premium.

4. The points for determination are (a) whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree directing the defendants to quit and deliver vacant possession of premises Nos. 8 and 9 Purasawalkam High Road. Purasawalam, Madras, known as Roxy Theatre, together with the machinery, equipment and fittings and furniture mentioned in Schedule 2 of the Plaint; (b) whether the notice given by the plaintiff is bad in law; (c) whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits and if so, at what rate; and (d) whether the plaintiff is entitled to the excess property-tax.

5. Point (a) :- The defendants case that the exemption granted by the Government was not valid and that the Government had no power to grant the exemption was tested in Writ Appeal No. 27 of 1953 and the Bench composed of the l