CHIDAMBARAM CHETTY Vs. SOMASUNDRAM CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first contention is that the defendant could not proceed against the appellant under Sections 38 and 39 of the Rent Recovery Act as the appellant is not a cultivating tenant but a middleman who has taken a lease of the melvaram. The contention is concluded against the appellant by the decision in Muthusami Pillai v. Arunachellam Chettiar 29 M. 79 : 15 M.L.J. 361.

(2.) The next contention is that there was no proper notice. All that Section 39 of the Act requires was done and the contention must fail.

(3.) The appeal is dismissed with costs.