z96z accordance with the conditions of his lease, but the latter declined to do so relying upon the Act and the P. J. Irani , f d T v. protection which it con erre upon him. hereupon State of Madras the present appellant-P. J. Irani- as representing the estate of his father who had by then died, filed a Ayyangar J. suit on the original side of the Madras High Court (C. S. 479 of 1947) for evicting the second respondent from the property. It may be mentioned. that the suit was based upon the allegation that what had been leased to Venkayya originally was a, vacant site without any buildings and that consequently Madras Act XV of 1946 which did not apply to leases of mere vacant sites did not apply to protect the second respondent's possession. The suit was, however, dismissed by judgment rendered on April 22, 1948, on the finding that a building as well as the site had been included in the lease, which brought it within the scope and protection of the Act. The appellant filed an appeal against this judgment (Original Side Appeal 37 of 1948) which was also dismissed. on ,July 29, 1951, on the same finding. Even while the appeal was still pending before the High Court, Irani a.pplied to the Government of Madras for exemption of the premises from the operation of the Act. By the date of this application Madras Act XV of 1946 had been repealed and its provisions substantially re.enacted in the Madras Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1949, but as the provisions of the two enadmenls on the points which arise for decision in this appeal are identical it is sufficient if reference is made to those of the later Act. A provision for exemption being granted from the operation of the Act by the State Government was contained in s. 13 of the Act (Madras Buildings) Lease & Rent Control Act, 19·19), to which we shall hereafter refer as the Act, in the following terms:
