Judgment :- 1. The defendant in O.S. No. 9993 of 1973, First Assistant City Civil Court, Madras, is the petitioner in the civil revision petition directed against the order in C.M.A. No. 130 of 1982 passed by the 9th Additional judge, City Civil Court, Madras, holding that the petitioner cannot claim to be a tenant within the meaning of that expression under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore, canaot claim the benefits of S. 9 of the Act. The circumstances giving rise to the civil revision petiiion are as under. 2. The respondent herein leased out an extent of 5760 sq. ft., of land to Caltex (India) Limited initially for a period of five years from 1st November, 1954 upto 31st October, 1959. Subsequently, the lease was renewed between 1959 and 1964, 1964 to 1969 and the last renewal with effect from 1st November, 1969 upto 31st October, 1974 was granted on 28th September, 1972 on a rent of Rs. 370 per month. Sometime in April, 1974, Caltex (India) Ltd., sought a renewal of the lease for a further period; but the respondent herein was not inclined to grant such renewal. On 10th August, 1974, the respondent herein called upon Caltex (India) Ltd., to surrender possession to which Caltex (India) Limited sent a reply on 10th September, 1974 claiming protection under the Act. Again the respondent issued notices to Caltex (India) Ltd., on 25th September, 1975 and 27th September, 1976 demanding possession and owing to non compliance with the demand so made by the respondent for possession, the respondent instituted on 19th October, 1976, O.S. No. 9993 of 1976 praying for recovey of possession of the extent of 5760 sq. ft. leased out by the respondent in favour of Caltex (India) Ltd., and for other incidental relifes. Caltex (India) Ltd., sent a reply on 1st November, 1976 claiming protection under the Act. Later, on 29th November, 1976, Caltex (India) Ltd., wrote to the effect that the Government of India is its successor. On 30th December, 1976, the Government of India promulgated Ordinance No. 15 of 1976 with effect from 30th December, 1976 and by a notification dated 30th December, 1976, the Central Government vested the right, title and interest of Caltex (India) Limited in Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited. On 30th December, 1976, the Government of India promulgated Ordinance No. 15 of 1976 with effect from 30th December, 1976 and by a notification dated 30th December, 1976, the Central Government vested the right, title and interest of Caltex (India) Limited in Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited. Subsequently, on 23rd April, 1977, Ordinance 15 of 1976 was replaced by Act 17 of 1977 called the Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited and of the Undertakings In India of Caltex (India, Limited Act, 1977. Prior to that on 18th January, 1977, Caltex (India) Ltd., wrote stati ng that on and from 31st December, 1976, Caltex (India) Limited vested with the Government of India and then was called Caltex Oil Refining’ (India) Ltd., On 24th January, 1977, summons in the suit in O.S. No. 9993 of 1976 was served on Caltex (India) Limited ( sic ) and they filed a written staterr ent claiming the benefits of the Act and stating that the notice to quit was bad as not being in conformity with S. 11 of the Act. It was also stated in the written statement that Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited was entitled to purchase the land ftom the respondent under S. 9 of the Act and that an application had also been filed into court in time. Such an application however, was filed under S. 9 of the Act by Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited in I.A. No. 5238 of 1977 on 20th June, 1977. Therein, Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited claimed that the rights and privileges available to the erstwhile Caltex (India) Ltd., bad been transferred to and vested in Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited by virtue of Ordinance XV of 1976 and the notification No. GSK 963 (EL) dated, 30th December, 1976 issued by the Government of India and therefore, Caltex oil Refining (India) Limited has to be treated as the successor in interest of Caltex (India) Ltd., and as such, it was entitled to claim the benefits of S. 9 of the Act without prejudice to the rights conferred under Cl. 7 of the Ordinance. 7 of the Ordinance. It was further claimed that for the purpose of the convenient enjoyment of Caltex Oil Refining (India; Ltd., the entire extent would be requited and therefore, a direction should be issued by the court to the respondent for the sale of the entire extent to Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd., at a price to be ascertained and determined by Court. In the counter filed by the respondent on 23rd June, 1977, he raised the objection that Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd., was not entitled to invoke the benefits of S. 9 of the Act as such a right was a personal one which stood forfeited when Caltex (India) Ltd. ceased to exist. It was also the further plea of the respondent that Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd., was not a tenant within the meaning of S. 2(4) of the Act and therefore, the benefits or S. 9 of the Act cannot be invoked by it. Subsequently, on 9th May, 1978, the undertaking of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited., stood transferred and vested in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation limited, the petitioner herein, and consequent upon this, in the place of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd., the name of the petitioner was substituted in I.A. No. 5238 of 1977. 3. Dealing with the application I.A. No. 5238 of 1977 filed by caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd., the learned First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, took the view that as the right, title and interest of Caltex (India) Ltd., stood, vested in the petitioner, it would be entitled to the benefits of S. 9 of the Act and in that view, allowed that application Aggrieved by that the respondent herein preferred an appeal in C.M.A. No. 130 of 1982 before the 9th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. On a consideration of the definition of “tenant” occurring in S. 2(4) of the Act, the learned Judge was of the view that the tenancy agreement in favour of the person claiming the benefits of the Act should have come into existence prior to 12th September, 1955, that such a tenant or any of his predecessors should have erected a building on the land and the person who claims rights under the Act should have continued in actual physical possession of such land and building and since, the petitioner came into existence only on 9th May, 1978, it cannot claim to be a tenant as per S. 2(4)(ii)(b) of the Act and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim to be a tenant within the meaning of that definition under the Act entitled to the benefits of S. 9 as well. On that conclusion, the appeal was allowed and I.A. No. 5238 of 1977 filed by Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd., was dismissed. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this civil revision petition. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under S. 2(4)(ii)(b) of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to maintain the application as a tenant and claim the benefits of S. 9 of the Act. Elaborating this, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as successor in interest of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited, the petitioner can project its claims to the benefits of S. 9 of the Act as a tenant under S. 2 (1)(ii)(b) of the Act. Reliance in this connection was also placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the decision in T.R.P. Raja Sekara Bhoopathy v. Naveneethammal and others 1. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the application filed in I.A. No. 5218 of 1977 should be dealt with in the light of the definition of “tenant” occurring in S. 2(4) of the Act as well as the provisions of S. 1(3) of the Act as it stood at the time when the application was made and if so done, the petitioner was not a tenant at all and cannot claim to be entitled to the benefits of the Act. Strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the respondent upon the decision in Y. Abdul Mallik and another v. St.Francis Xaviers Church, represented by its Parish Priest Fr. Joseph Sandanam 2. 5. There is no dispute in this case that at the time of the grant of the original lease in 1954 and prior to 30th December, 1976, Caltex (India) Limited was the tenant. The summons in the suit had also been served on the tenant, Caltex (India) Limited, though the written statement as well as the application under S. 9 of the Act in I.A. No. 5238 of 1977, were filed by Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited. Only subsequently, on 9th May, 1978, Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited was amalgamated with Hindustan Petroleum Limited, the petitioner herein. While considering the application in I.A. No. 5238 of 1977 the trial court had merely proceeded on the footing that the petitioner is a successor in interest to Caltex (India) Limited, who was the original tenant, and therefore, the petitioner can claim to be a tenant entitled to the benefits of S. 9 of the Act. That conclusion had been arrived at by the trial court without reference to the definition of “tenant” under S. 2(4) of the Act. Unless a person is a tenant under the Act entitled to compensation under S. 3 of the Act, such a person cannot claim to be entitled to benefits under S. 9 of the Act. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner would fall within the definition of “tenant” under S. 2(4) of the Act. S. 2(4) of the Act defining a “tenant” is as follows:— (4) ‘Tenant’ in relation to any land— (i) means a person liable to pasrent in respect of such land under a tenancy agreement, express or implied, and (ii) Includes— (a) any such person as is referred to in sub-Cl. (i) who continues in possession of the land after the determination of the tenancy agreement. (i) who continues in possession of the land after the determination of the tenancy agreement. (b) any person who was a tenant in respect of such land under a tenancy agreement to which this Act is applicable under sub-S. (3) of S. 1 and who or any of his predecessors-in-interest had erected any building on such land and who continues in actual physical possession of such land and building notwithstanding that— (1) such person was not entitled to the rights under this Act by reason of the proviso to S. 12 of this Act as it stood before the date of the publication of the Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act 1972, (Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1972) or (2) a decree for declaration or a decree or an order for possession or for similar relief has been passed against such person on the ground that the proviso to S. 12 of this Act as it stood before the date of the publication of the Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1972 Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1972) disentitled such person from claiming the right under this Act, and (c) the heirs of any such person as is referred to in Sub-Cl. (i) or Sub-Cl. (ii) a) or ii(b) but does not include a sub-tenant or his heirs).” S. 1(3) of the Act referred to under S. 2 (4)(ii)(b) above, stood as under at the time when I.A. No. 5238 of 1977 was filed by Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited on 20th June, 1977. “This Act shall apply, in the City of Madras only to tenancies of land created before the commencement of this Act, and in any other municipal town to which this Act is extended by notification under Sub-S. (2), only to tenancies created before the date with effect from which this Act is extended to such town.” The provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1955 (Act 19 of 1955) came into force on 12th September 1955. Therefore, at the relevant point of time when I.A. No. 5238 of 1977 was filed by Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited, it was not a tenant, for, the tenancy, even assuming it to have commenced in favour of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited, came into being only on 30th December, 1976 long subsequent to 12th September 1955, as provided under S. 1(3) of the Act. Similarly, with reference to the petitioner also, if at all, the petitioner could claim rights as a tenant, it could be only on and from 9th May, 1978, when the petitioner came into existence by reason of amalgamation. Before a person can claim to be right clothed with rights as a tenant under S. 2(4)(ii)(b) of the Act, it must be established that such a person was a tenant in respect of a land under a tenancy agreement to which the provisions of the Act can be applicable under S. 1(3) of the Act as set out earlier. Applying this to the instant case, Caltex (India) Limited alone at the time when the suit was instituted on 19th October, 1976 could have claimed the benefits of the Act as a tenant. The successors-in interest of Caltex (India) Limited, viz., Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited and Hindustan Petroleum Limited cannot be brought within the definition of a tenant under S. 2(4)(ii)(b) of the Act. What is contemplated under S. 2(4)(ii)(b) of the Act is that a person, before he can claim to be a tenant under the Act should have been such a tenant under a tenancy agreement prior to 12th September, 1955 and he or his predecessors-in-interest should have erected a building. In this case, there was no tenancy agreement at all in favour of the petitioner or its predecessor, viz., Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd., prior to 12th September, 1955 and therefore, they could not have been tenants at all under S. 2(4)(ii)(b) of the Act. The only person who could have claimed rights as a tenant was Caltex (India) Limited and that would be covered by S. 2 (4)(i) of the Act, because there was a direct tenancy agreement between Caltex (India) Limited and the respondent. Besides under S. 2(4)(ii)(b) of the Act, before a person can claim benefits as a tenant, he should have been a tenant of land under tenancy agreement prior to 12th September, 1956 and such person or his predecessors-in-interest should have erected the building on the land of such a person and have continued in actual physical possession of the land and the building. In this case, as pointed out earlier, there was a tenancy agreement prior to 12th September, 1955 only in favour of Caltex (India) Ltd., and not either in favour of the petitioner or Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited. In this case, as pointed out earlier, there was a tenancy agreement prior to 12th September, 1955 only in favour of Caltex (India) Ltd., and not either in favour of the petitioner or Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited. Therefore, with reference to the date on which the application in I.A. No. 5238 of 1977 was made, only Caltex (India) Limited could have maintained the application as a tenant and not Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited. It follows therefore that the pttitioner even as successor to Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited could not have maintained the application, for, it cannot claim better rights than Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited. That this is the position in law with reference to the claim of rights as a tenant is supported by the decision in Y. Abdul Mallik and another v. St. Francis Xaviers Church, represented by its Parish Priest Fr. Joseph Sandanam 1. In that case, though the tenant put up a superstructure prior to 1955, there was an assignment of the leasehold as well as the superstructure only on 15th July, 1965. In defence to a suit in ejectment against the tenant as well as the assignee, the assignee pleaded that as a result of the assignment, he became a tenant entitled to protection under the Act. That was negatived by the coums below and it was urged before this court the it as a resul of the substitution of the definition of a tenant by Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1960, the assignee of a superstructure and the leasehold right will become entitled to claim the benefits of the Act, irrespective of the fact whether the assignment was prior to 1960 or subsequent to 1960. Negativing this contention, it was held that though an assignee had been given protection under the Act, only such assignees of lands and buildings, who got assignments prior to 12th September, 1955 and continued to be in possession thereafter alone, will be entitled to the benefit o f the protection even as per the amended definition of the term “tenant” and that since the assignment in favour of the tenant was on 15th July, 1965, he will not be entitled to the benefits of the Act. Similar is the situation in this case even considering Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited and the petitioner herein as succes-sors-in-interest or even as assignees of the superstructure as well as the leasehold interest of Caltex (India) Limited. Though Caltex (India) Limited was originally the tenant entitled to the benefits of the Act, the vesting of its interest in Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited and the petitioner herein was only on 30th December, 1976 and 9th May, 1978 long subsequent to 12th September, 1955, which is the relevant date under S. 2(4)(ii)(b) of the Act read with S. 1(3) of the Act and therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to claim benefits under the Act as a tenant. In my view the principle of the decision in Y. Abdul Mallik and another v. St.Francis Xaviers Church, represented by its Parish Priest Fr. Joseph Sandanam 1, would govern this case. The decision in T.R.P. Raja Sekara Bhoopathy v. Navaneethammal and others 2, did not deal with a situation as in the present case, for, the principal question decided therein was whether the heirs of a tenant are entitled to the benefits under the Act and whether for establishing such rights, they should prove actual physical possession of tbe land and the building. In this case, we are not concerned with heritable rights as in the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner or the sustaining of such a claim as successors-in-interest under S. 2(4)(ii)(b) of the Act which contemplates only a tenant or his predecessors-in-interest. In my view, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be applied to the situation in this case. 5. It is further significant to note that though I.A. No. 5238 of 1977 was disposed of by the court on 6th July, 1982 and the appellate court dealt with the matter on 21st November, 1983, the petitioner had not projected or put forth any claim as a tenant with reference to the amendments made by the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1979, (Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1980). Even before this Court, the petitioner did not categorically claim to have become entitled to benefits as a tenant by reason of the amendments effected and therefore, the courts below were quite correct in having proceeded to deal with the application in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as they stood prior to the amendment. In that situation, as pointed out earlier, the decision of this Court in Y. Abdul Mallik and another v. St.Francis Xaviers Church, represented by its Parish Priest Fr. Joseph Sandanam 1, would govern this case. 6. Though the learned counsel for the respondent raised a few other contentions relating to the ineligibility of the petitioner to claim the benefits of the Act, it is unnecessary to refer to any of them, as even under S. 2(4)(ii)(b) of the Act relied on by the petitioner, it cannot be considered to be a tenant entitled to the benefits of the Act for the purpose of maintaining an application under S. 9 of the Act. Consequently, the order of the lower appellate court is upheld, and the civil revision petition is dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.