1. The petitioners are the tenants who were sought to be evicted by the respondent under S. 3(2)(b) read with S. 4(a) and (b) of Madras Act XXV of 1955. The sole question which arose for consideration before the Authorised Officer, who was the Revenue Court, Pudukottai, was whether the petitioners were ‘tenants’ at all within the meaning of the Act, and/or if they were sub-tenants, were they entitled to protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. After fully considering the documentary and oral evidence let in, the Authorised Officer, came to the conclusion that the petitioners were let into the land after the determination of the lease in favour of the original tenant. After noticing the facts, he was of the view that even if a cultivating tenant grants a sublease of a part of what has been demised to him, the sub-tenant would be liable for eviction under the provisions of S. 3(2)(b) read with S. 4 of the Act. But, he later on, found, as a fact, that the assignment of the lease in favour of the sub lessees in this case was undoubtedly long after the determination of the original tenancy agreement between the landlord and the tenant and that