Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.
1. The appellant is the auction purchaser of theright, title and interest of one Ponnuswami in the property in suit, and claims the benefit of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act of 1921. Ponnuswami admittedly was a tenant of only a portion of the land in suit. The total area measures 5-5/6 grounds. Both the City Civil Court and Somayya, J., on appeal held that the tenancy only applied to 3 grounds 1,350 square feet, which meant that the appellant was certainly a trespasser so far as the rest of the area was concerned. Ponnuswami denied his landlord's title and therefore the landlord was entitled to terminate his tenancy, which was done by a notice given to him on 10th September, 1936. He was informed that unless he vacated and delivered vacant possession of the land within three days of the receipt of the notice, proceedings in ejectment would be taken against him. The appellant's purchase of the right, title and interest of Ponnuswami took place two years later. If Ponnuswami had in law any right in this land it would have passed to the appellant but clearly he had none.
2. The appellant says that he is a tenant within the meaning of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act of 1921 and that the suit was bad because no notice was given to him in accordance with the provisions of Section 11. Somayya, J., has given reasons for holding that the appellant is not a tenant within the meaning of the Act and we agree with him. The Act defines a tenant as meaning a tenant of land liable to pay rent on it, every other person deriving title from him and includes persons who continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy. The argument of the appellant is that Ponnuswami was in possession after the termination of his tenancy and therefore was entitled to pass on the benefit of the Act to the appellant. It is impossible to accept the argument that a person who claims under a person whose tenancy has been determined is a tenant and is entitled to further notice. When the appellant purported to purchase Ponnuswami's rights, Ponnuswami was nota tenant and therefore could assign no tenancy right to the appellant.
3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.