A. UNNOOLI Vs. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents filed O.S. No. 1158 of 1946 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff of Calicut for possession of the suit property. The 1st defendant is the usufructuary mortgagee. The second defendant is a lessee under the first defendant. The second defendant applied for stay of trial of the suit under Section 4(1) of Act XVII of 1946, but the learned District Munsiff dismissed the application on the ground that the first defendant was not a tenant within the meaning of the Act. The second defendant has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) SUBSEQUENT to the filing of the revision petition a Bench of this Court held in Govindan Nair v. : (1949)1MLJ475 . (C.R.P. No. 1090 of 1947) that a usufructuary mortgagee is a tenant who is entitled to relief under Madras Act XVII of 1946. As this is a Bench decision I am bound by it. Mr. Ramakrishna Aiyar argued that even so the petitioner is not entitled to the relief, because he is only a sublessee, and that it has been held by this Court that a sub -lessee is not a tenant within the meaning of the Malabar Tenancy Act. This argument ignores the scope of Section 4 of the Madras Act XVII of 1946. Under Section 4(1) of the Act:

(3.) THE revision petition is allowed with costs.