This is a suit for declaration that the order of the Rent Controller dated the 5th April, 1948, passed in L. Dis. No. 4985 H.R.C. of 1947 in favour of the defendant is invalid, without jurisdiction and unenforceable as against the plaintiffs and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from enforcing the said order.

House, ground and premises No. 403, Mint Street, George Town, Madras, is owned by the defendant. The Corporation gave separate sub-numbers to portions of the said premises. In or about the middle of August, 1943, the first plaintiff obtained from the defendant a lease of a portion of that building numbered as 4/403, Mint Street, on a monthly rental of Rs. 55. Subsequently, by agreement between the parties the rent was increased to Rs. 60 per mensem. The first plaintiff failed to pay the rent in respect of the said premises for the month of July, 1947, before the end of August, 1947. In view of the default so made, the defendant filed an application before the Rent Controller, Madras, against the first plaintiff under section 7 of Madras Act XV of 1946 (hereafter called the Act) praying for ejectment of the first plaintiff from the said premises. To that application, the second plaintiff was not made a party. The Rent Controller made an order on the 5th April, 1948, for eviction of the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Presidency Court of Small Causes, Madras, against the said order of the Rent Controller and the appeal also was dismissed. The second plaintiff is the brother of the first plaintiff. He claims to be a sub-tenant under the first plaintiff since 1945 of a room in the said premises. The plaintiffs filed this suit for the aforesaid reliefs mainly on the ground that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to order eviction as there had not been a previous or antecedent determination of the tenancy in accordance with law. The second plaintiff states that as there was no termination of the tenancy in accordance with law, his interest in the sub-tenancy continues and as he is not a tenant within the meaning of the Act, he is not liable to be evicted by any order passed by the Rent Controller. Further, the Rent Controller’s order could not affect his rights as sub-tenant to continue to occupy his portion of the premises as he was not a party to that order. The defendant in his written statement stated that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit and the second plaintiff is not a sub-tenant of the first plaintiff.

The following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the suit is maintainable?

2. Whether the second plaintiff is a sub-tenant?

Learned counsel for the defendant contends relying upon sections 7 and 12 of the Act, that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Section 7 reads as follows:

"(1) A tenant in possession of a building shall not be evicted therefrom, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise and whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this section:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply to a tenant whose landlord is the Provincial Government:

Provided further that where the tenant denies the title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy the Controller shall decide whether the denial or claim is bona fide and if he records a finding to that effect, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a Civil Court and the Court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in this section, notwithstanding that the Court finds that such denial does not involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded.

(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied-

(i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due