Govinda Menon, J.- The proceedings out of which this appeal arises are absolutely devoid of merits and were rightly dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge. The appellant who was the third defendant in O.S. No. 78 of 1946 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, and who was a party respondent in A.S. No. 129 of 1948 on appeal therefrom to this Court, now contests that the compromise decree passed by this Court by means of which he was directed to surrender possession of the suit premises is null and void and should be treated as if it did not exist. The first defendant was a lessee under the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 13; were sub-tenants under the first defendant. What was originally let to the first defendant was a piece of vacant land on which the first defendant erected buildings at considerable cost. A portion of those premises was let to the third defendant. In and by virtue of the compromise it was directed that the plaintiffs do purchase the rights of the first defendant in those buildings and get possession of the buildings. The third defendant, though a party to the appeal, did not in fact take part in the compromise proceedings. But the learned Judge in the Court below on a construction of the decision of this Court in A.S. No. 129 of 1948 has now held that the third defendant is bound by the compromise and when the plaintiffs seek to execute the decree he cannot be heard to say that he would not surrender possession of the property. Mr. P.S. Balakrishna Aiyar for the appellant contends that the relationship between the first defendant and the third defendant is that of a lessor and lessee of a building which would attract the operation of the Madras Buildings. (Lease and Rent Control) Act, under the provisions of which it was not open to the first defendant to eject the third defendant in pursuance of a decree of Court. When therefore, the first defendant agreed to surrender the building to the plaintiffs on receipt of a sum of money as compensation, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have obtained any right to eject the third defendant from these premises in pursuance to the decree of Court. When therefore, the first defendant agreed to surrender the building to the plaintiffs on receipt of a sum of money as compensation, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have obtained any right to eject the third defendant from these premises in pursuance to the decree of Court. What is further contended is that this Court went beyond its jurisdiction and acted in excess of its authority in holding that the compromise is binding on the third defendant. The reason alleged is that the subject-matter of the appeal could by no stretch of imagination be a dispute between the third defendant and the first defendant with the result that any claim which the third defendant had against the first defendant could not be adjudicated upon in this suit. We have carefully read the judgment of Panchapagesa Sastri, J. and in our opinion the learned Judge took all the matters into consideration and found that the compromise was bona fide valid and binding on the third defendant. Under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, a sub-tenant as such is not recognise .1 and if a landlord brings a suit in ejectment a sub-tenant let into possession cannot raise any question and submit that he has a status under the Act which should be safeguarded by its provisions. But Mr. Balakrishna Aiyar contends that the relationship between the first defendant and third defendant is that of lessor and lessee and if that is so that relationship could not have been the subject of adjudication in the appeal. It may be so if the first defendant had filed a suit against the third defendant. But whatever rights the third defendant may have against the first defendant, cannot affect the rights of the plaintiffs. So far as the plaintiffs are concerned, the third defendant does not exist at all and any proceedings by which they have got a decree against the first defendant would be binding on the third defendant. We are therefore of opinion that the lower Court has rightly held that the decree of the High Court is not a nullity. This appeal is dismissed with costs. K.C. ----- Appeal dismissed.