Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-23-1942
Reported in : AIR1943Mad386; (1943)1MLJ102
..... and consequently the appellants were compelled to file the present suit for the ejectment of the defendants.2. various defences were raised. one was that the suit was bad for multifariousness and another was that it could not be maintained because the provisions of section 11 of the madras city tenants protection act, 1921, had not been complied with. the city ..... civil court accepted the plea of the defendants that the suit as framed was bad for multifariousness and dismissed it on that ground. the appellants then appealed to this court. the appeal was heard by patanjali sastri, j., who disagreed with the opinion of the trial judge ..... that the suit was bad for multifariousness, but he dismissed the appeal because he considered that the plea based on section 11 of the madras city tenants protection act was well founded. this appeal is from the .....Tag this Judgment!