- (1.) A bench of three Judges of this court by judgment dated 26/5/1989 while negativing all the contentions raised by the appellant-tenant found merit in the contention raised by the counsel that if the first appellant was in effective control over the management of the business of the partnership to which he had taken two other partners, it would amount that he had not sub- let the premises and that he would be "a tenant" within the meaning of sub- clause (a) of clause (ii) of Ss. (4 of Section 2 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1922.
(2.) Ss. (4 of Section 2 defines the term 'tenant' in relation to any land. Clause (i) thereof runs as follows: "2.(4 (I) means a person liable to pay rent in respect of such land, under a tenancy agreement express or implied. "
(3.) Sub-clause (a) of clause (ii) of Ss. (4 of Section 2 of the said a Act runs as follows: "2.(4 (Ii) (a) any such person as is referred to in sub-clause (i) who continues in possession of the land after the determination of the tenancy agreement. ";