1. The Subordinate Judge's finding is that the building for which compensation is claimed by the appellant under the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act (Madras Act I of 1900) is a shop and not a dwelling house, that it was not meant for the purposes of habitation ' and that the shop in question is unsuitable to the holding and inconsistent with the purpose for which the property was let.'
2. We see no sufficient reasons for not accepting this finding, though the learned Subordinate Judge has referred in his judgment to some irrelevant matters such as the present dismantled and damaged state of the shop.
3. It is clear that under the Act the appellant is not entitled to compensation for a building which is unsuitable to the holding.
4. The contention that the appellants' right to compensation for a shop building exists independently of the Act was not raised in the lower Courts and even if it could be raised now, we have not been referred to any clear authority which entities a tenant to claim compensation for a shop building put upon his holding.
5. We dismiss the second appeal with costs. The time both for redemption and for removal of the building is extended to three months from this day.