JUDGMENT

RANGANATHAN, J.:—A very interesting question comes up for consideration in this appeal. The question to be ultimately decided falls within a very narrow compass but it is necessary to set out the facts leadingto the present appeal at some length.

2. The property, which is the subject matter of the present dispute, originally formed part of an extent of land situated on Mount Road, Madras, bearing doors Nos. 2, and 3 and measuring 41 grounds and 2005 sq. ft. It belonged to several co-owners. These co-owners had leased out the properties under two lease deeds in favour of M/s. India Automobiles, which was then the sole proprietary concern of one of themselves, Ganshyamdas Girdhardas (G.G.), but was converted subsequently, in 1961, into a partnership concern of G.G. and his four sons. The firm and its partners are hereinafter compendiously referred to as the tenants. The first lease (Ext. P-1) was dated 22-9-1947 and related to Door No. 2 (Item No. 1 in Schedule A to the plaint). This was a property comprising of an area of 4 grounds and 151 square feet with certain buildings thereon. The rent for the premises was Rs. 150/- per month. The second lease deed (Ext. P-2), dated 3-10-1947, relating to Door No. 3 (Item 2 in Schedule A to the plaint) covered an area. of 8700 sq. ft. and some building thereon. The rent as per lease deed was Rs. 200/- per month.

3. On 30-7-1953, all the co-owners of the property (including G. G.) sold the property to the United India Life Assurance Company and the New Guardian of India Life Insurance Company Ltd. In 1956, the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) stepped into the shoes of these two insurance companies and became the owner of the property.

4. On 20-7-65, the LIC moved two applications (being HRC Nos. 3310 and 3311 of 1965) in the Court of the Rent Controller (Sri A. Varadarajan who later became a Judge of this Court) for fixation of a "fair rent" for each of the premises. The fair rent claimed was computed at Rs. 2,399.03 per month in respect of item No. 1 as against the rent of Rs. 150 p.m. fixed under the lease deed. In respect of item 2 the fair rent claimed was Rs. 3266.50 as against Rs. 200 p.m. payable under the lease deed. The defendants (G.G. and his sons) filed their objections to the above applications. They claimed that, under both the lease deeds, what had been leased out to them was only a vacant land and that the superstructure had been built by them. They claimed, therefore, that they were entitled to relief under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act and that the Rent Control Court had no jurisdiction to fix a fair rent.

5. The Rent Controller accepted the above argument so far as item 1 was concerned. So far as item 2 was concerned, it appears that, at the time of the hearing, it was conceded before the Rent Controller that the respondents were tenants of the entire properties covered by the lease deed and that they had not constructed any of the premises thereupon. In view of this the Rent Controller dismissed H.R.C. 3310/65 relating to item No. 1 and, in H.R.C. 3311/65, fixed the fair rent in respect of item No. 2 at Rs. 1451 p.m. The order of the Rent Controller was dated 9-3-1966.

6. There were appeals to the Court of Small Causes. In respect of item No. 1, in H.R. A. 534/66, the Court, on a perusal of the sale-deed dated 30-7-53 filed by the LIC before it came to the conclusion that the buildings on the land leased under Ex. P-1 had also been conveyed to the LIC and that the LIC was entitled to seek fixation of fair rent in respect of this premises also. The fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller at Rs. 994 p.m. was upheld. The order of the Rent Controller in respect of item 2 was aiso upheld. It may be mentioned here that, even in certain earlier proceedings for fixation of fair rent and eviction (H.R.C. 867/73 and H.R.C.2557/64),it had been held by the Rent Controller that item No. 1 (door No. ) belonged to the LIC but his order of eviction had been set asi