GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. :- Second Appeal No. 917 of 1952 and two other matters have been referred to a Division Bench because they raise a common question of law of some importance. In all these matters the landlord had determined the lease in favour of his tenant and had sued to eject the tenant. The landlords claim was resisted by the tenant; but ultimately a compromise decree was obtained by the parties. By reason of the compromise decree the defendant was allowed to remain in possession of the property for a stated period. At the end of this period the landlord sought to execute the compromise decree and claimed possession by execution process.

The defendant resisted this claim on the ground that the compromise decree made him a tenant of the decree-holder and under the provisions of the Rent Restriction Act, 57 of 1947, it was not open to the landlord to obtain possession. It is somewhat remarkable that in all the three matters the Courts below have held that the compromise decree did not make the judgment-debtor a tenant of the decree-holder and they have accordingly allowed the decree-holders claim for possession. The judgment-debtors who have come to this Court against t