Judgment :- 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 the sub-lessees could not, therefore, claim to have got into possession of the land under a tenancy agreement, express or implied. On these grounds, he held that the petitioners were not entitled to protection under the Act. The petitioners have now come up before this court in revision. 2. The question, therefore, is whether a sub-tenant, who was inducted into the premises, which is agricultural land in this case, after the determination of the lease in favour of the quondam tenant, could still claim the benefits under the Act. This leads on to the question as to what is the status of a tenant under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, who continues in occupation of the demised premises after the determination of the lease? Ordinarily, under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, he has a right to continue in possession thereof, but there is a snapping of the contractual relationship as between himself and the landlord in relation to the demised property. Ordinarily, under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, he has a right to continue in possession thereof, but there is a snapping of the contractual relationship as between himself and the landlord in relation to the demised property. What he secures by continuing in possession of the property after the determination of the lease is what is termed in legal phraseology as the right of irremovability; but, he cannot claim rights which ordinarily flow from a contract of tenancy. But, in cases where he holds over and remains in possession after the determination of the tenancy, certain statutes which are of a later origin and which are agrarian in nature, have created certain special benefits and vested in such persons holding over and remaining in the demised premises after the determination of the tenancy, certain special rights not provided for under the Transfer of Property Act. Under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, during the period and currency of the contractual tenancy, the tenant has the option to assign the same and bind the assignee and create a fictional contractual relationship between the assignee and the landlord, and also make his interest in the land as tenant, heritable; this is not available to a tenant who remains in possession of the property after the determination of the lease. Such a tenant who holds over cannot assign or make his right of irremovability, which is appurtenant to his status as a statutory tenant, heritable. But, certain exceptions, however, have been envisaged in what I characterised as agrarian legislation, and one such provision is found in the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. 3. The earlier view which the Supreme Court took and which V. Ramaswami, J. followed in Subbiah Thevar v. Muthurangasami Naicker 1975-I-M.L.J. 306=88 L.W. 775 appears to be no longer an opinion which has the weightage demanding following up. 3. The earlier view which the Supreme Court took and which V. Ramaswami, J. followed in Subbiah Thevar v. Muthurangasami Naicker 1975-I-M.L.J. 306=88 L.W. 775 appears to be no longer an opinion which has the weightage demanding following up. This is so, because, the learned Judge himself, after noticing the later decision of the Supreme Court in Damadilal v. Parashram A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2229, corrected his view in Ramiah Nattar v. Jambakathamma S.A. 1916 of 1973 and went to the extent of pointing out that it is no longer open to rely on the two earlier judgments of the Supreme Court, viz., Anand Nivas (P.) Ltd. v. Anandji A.T.R. 1965 S.C. 414 and J.C. Chatterjee v. S.K. Tandon A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2526, We shall just trace out the foundation for such variance in the two judgments rendered by the learned Judge. 4. Before doing so, it is necessary to refer to the statutory provision under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) S. 2(aa) runs thus: “(aa) ‘Cultivating tenant’— (i) means a person who contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of any land belonging to another, under a tenancy agreement, express or implied; and (ii) includes—(a) any such person who continues in possession of the land after the determination of the tenancy agreement; (b) the heir of such person, if the heir contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of such land; (c) a sub-tenant if he contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of such land; or (d) any such sub-tenant who continues in possession of the land notwithstanding that the person who sublet the land to such sub-tenant ceases to have the right to possession of such land; but (iii) does not include a mere intermediary or his hon. Explanation :—A sub-tenant shall be deemed to be a cultivating tenant of the holding under the landlord if the lessor of such sub-tenant has ceased to be the tenant of such landlord.” 5. No doubt, the two requirements under the definition of a ‘cultivating tenant’ are contribution of personal labour and the existence of a tenancy agreement, express or implied. Explanation :—A sub-tenant shall be deemed to be a cultivating tenant of the holding under the landlord if the lessor of such sub-tenant has ceased to be the tenant of such landlord.” 5. No doubt, the two requirements under the definition of a ‘cultivating tenant’ are contribution of personal labour and the existence of a tenancy agreement, express or implied. In so far as the inclusive definition of a tenant which is provided for in S. 2(aa)(ii) is concerned, the existence of one of the requirements as above is automatically dispensed with, for, in the case of a person who continues in possession of the land after the determination of the tenancy agreement, one cannot expect an ‘agreement’, either express or implied, for such continuance. But the other requirement regarding contribution of physical labour in the matter of cultivation of the land, of course, is necessary. But, what is to be noted is that a person who continues to be in possession of the land after the determination of the tenancy agreement is also a cultivating tenant. Under the Explanation to the section, a sub-tenant shall be a ‘cultivating tenant’ of the holding under the landlord if the lessor of such sub-tenant has ceased to be a tenant of such landlord. This explanation makes it clear that on the cessation of the contractual relationship as between the landlord and the quondam tenant and if at site a sub-tenant who has been lawfully inducted by the quondam tenant is found in it and has been contributing his physical labour for the cultivation of the land demised to him, then, under S. 2(aa) Explanation, such a sub-tenant shall be deemed to be a ‘cultivating tenant’ of the holding under the landlord. It is this which I pointed out as an exception to the main understanding of the words ‘tenant’ and sub-tenant’ under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The Supreme Court had occasion to deal with a similar provision in Damadilal v. Parashram A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2229 under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 41 of 1961. They specifically considered the question whether the statutory tenant has a heritable interest in the premises. The Supreme Court had occasion to deal with a similar provision in Damadilal v. Parashram A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2229 under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 41 of 1961. They specifically considered the question whether the statutory tenant has a heritable interest in the premises. Having regard to the definition of a ‘tenant’ and a ‘sub-tenant’ in the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, the Supreme Court said: “The definition makes a person continuing in possession after the determination of his tenancy a tenant unless a decree or order for eviction has been made against him thus putting him on par with a person who contractual tenancy stilt subsists. The incidents of stash tenancy and a contractual tenancy must therefore be the same unless any provision of the Act conveyed a contrary intention. That under this Act such ft tenant retains an interest in the premises, not merely a personal right of occupation, will also appear from S. 14A contractual tenant, has an estate or interest in premises from which he carves out what he gives to the sub tenant.” It was because of this opinion expressed by the Supreme Court in Damadilal v. Parashram A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2229, V. Ramaswami, J. had to revise his opinion while deciding S.A. 1916 of 1973 aforesaid and would not follow his own judgment reported in Subbiah Thevar 1975-I-M.L.J. 306=88 L.W. 775 v. Muthurangaswami Naicker . It is in this context the learned Judge said that the two earlier judgments of the Supreme Court are no longer applicable. 6. Considering a similar position, the learned Judge was of the view in the second appeal aforesaid that so long as the sub-tenant contributes his physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of the land and he was lawfully inducted into possesssion by the quondam tenant, then, he would have all the rights annexed to a ‘cultivating tenant’ and he will be deemed to be one holding under the landlord. 7. The Authorised Officer was, therefore, wrong in having expressed the view that the petitioners are not entitled to protection under the Act. He ought not to have directed eviction of the petitioners from the holding in question. 8. On a consideration of the authorities cited above, the Civil Revision Petition if allowed. There will be no order as to costs.