In Re: J. Oliveira

madras act i of 1900, section 3 - licensee--tenant. - - 3. under exhibit i the complainant was a licensee and he agreed that if he failed to pull down the hut after three days' notice, messrs.orderarnold white, c.j.1. the public prosecutor says he is unable to support these convictions. i entirely agree.2. exhibit i was signed by the complainant. it is not found he was not aware of the contents when he signed it.3. under exhibit i the complainant was a licensee and he agreed that if he failed to pull down the hut after three days' notice, messrs. a spin wall might pull it down. the sessions judge finds the notice was duly served. after service of the notice and non-compliance herewith, messrs. a spin wall were entitled under the express terms of exhibit i, to pull down the hut. i am unable to take the view of the sessions judge that the complainant was a tenant entitled to the benefit of act i of 1900. he was a licensee and does not come within the definition of tenant in section 3 of the act.4. the convictions must be set aside and the fines, if paid, refunded.