Govinda Menon, J.
1. The proceedings out of which this appeal arises are absolutely devoid of merits and were rightly dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge.
2. The appellant who was defendant 3 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.
3. Defendant 1 was a lessee under the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 13 were sub-tenants under defendant 1. What was originally let to defendant 1 was a piece of vacant land on which defendant 1 erected buildings at considerable cost. A portion of those premises was let to the defendant 3. In and by virtue of the compromise it was directed that the plaintiffs do purchase the rights of defendant 1 in those buildings and get possession of the buildings. Defendant 3, 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 defendant 3 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.
4. Mr. P. S. Balakrishna Iyer for the appellant contends that the relationship between defendant 1 and defendant 3 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 defendant 1 to eject defendant 3 in pursuance of a decree of Court. When, therefore, defendant 1 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 defendant 3 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 defendant 3. The reason alleged is that the subject-matter of the appeal could by no stretch of imagination be a dispute between defendant 3 and defendant 1 with the result that any claim which defendant 3 had against defendant 1 could not be adjudicated upon in this suit.
5. We have carefully read the judgment of Panchapagesa Sastri J. and in out opinion the learned Judge took all the matters into consideration and found that the compromise was 'bona fide' valid and binding on defendant 3. Under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, a sub-tenant as such is not recognised 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 defendant 1 and defendant 3 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 defendant 1 had filed a suit against defendant 3. But whatever rights defendant 3 may have against defendant 1, cannot affect the rights of the plaintiffs. So far as the plaintiffs are concerned, defendant 3 does not exist at all and any proceedings by which they have got a decree against defendant 1 would be binding on defendant 3. 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.