A tenant under a consent decree is entitled to statutory protection, and the executing Court has jurisdiction to refuse to execute the decree contrary to the terms of the statute.

JUDGMENT :- The plaintiff filed a suit, being suit No. 272 of 1946, in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Belgaum, seeking to obtain possession of certain premises from the defendant on the allegation that the defendant was a tenant and that the tenancy wag duly terminated by notice.

2. The defendant resisted the claim on the ground that be was an annual tenant and the tenancy was not duly terminated. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at a compromise, the terms of which are as follows :

"(1) The defendant admits that he is the monthly tenant of the plaintiff. The defendant do deliver up possession of the suit property to the plaintiff before 31st January 1948.

(2) The defendant has paid the rent up to the end of March 1947 to the plaintiff. The defendant do forthwith pay the amount of rent remaining due up to this day and he do pay to the plaintiff rent of each month up to 31st January 1948, in advance on the first day of each of the several months."

This decree was passed on 11th June 1947, and the relations between the parties at that time were governed by Bombay Act VII (7) of 1944. The period provided by the decree having expired on 31st January 1948, and the defendant having failed to vacate, the plaintiff filed darkhast No. 25 of 1948 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Balgaum, seeking to obtain possession of the premises by execution of the decree in suit No. 272 of 1946. The defendant contended that he was entitled to the protection given by Bombay Act LVII (57) of 1947, which had been passed in the meanwhile and which was made applicable as from 13th February 1948. The learned trial Judge rejected the contention of the defendant and directed warrant under O. 21, R. 35, to issue.

2a. An appeal was preferred to the District Court at Belgaum, and the learned District Judge, who heard the appeal, reversed the order of the learned trial Judge and passed an order that the darkhast should stand dismissed. The plaintiff - decree-holder comes to this Court in second appeal.

3. It is contended by Mr. Lokur on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that the learned District Judge was wrong in coming to the conclusion that Bombay Act LVII (57) of 1947 applied to execution proceedings. Mr. Lokur refers to S. 50 of that Act, as it stood before its amendment which provided that all suits and proceedings other than execution proceedings and appeals which were pending in any Court between a landlord and tenant relating to the recovery or fixation of rent or possession of any premises, if they were pending at the date on which the Act came into operation, should be transferred to the Court constituted under Act LVII (57) of 1947, and thereupon all the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under were to apply to all such suits and proceedings.

4. Now, so far as the present darkhast is concerned, it has been filed on 16th February 1948, and was consequently a darkhast which was not pending at the date when the new Act came into operation. It is irrelevant therefore to consider what the effect of S. 50 of the new Act is. It is true that ordinarily a Court must execute the decree according to its terms except in those cases where there is a statutory limitation upon the right to execute by reason, however, of the provisions of S. 12 of Act LVII (57) of 1947 a tenant is not liable to be evicted if he is ready and willing to pay the rent accruing due to the full extent allowable by law. A conflict therefore arises between the direction of the decree and the protection granted by the statute to the tenant. That conflict would have to be resolved by reference to two main considerations : (1) Is a person against whom a decree is passed in ejectment on the ground that his tenancy was terminated and that he was not entitled to the protection of the statute but is in possession a tenant within the meaning of the Act, LVII [57] of 1947, (2). If he is a tenant, can be insist upon remaining