K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.

1. The judgment debtor in E.P. 351/99 in O. S. 768/96 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Paravur has filed this revision petition challenging the order in the E.P. dated 27.1.2001 ordering delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property, overruling the contention raised by him that the decree is not executable.

2. In the above suit filed for eviction of the revision petitioner from the plaint schedule property owned by the respondent Church, a compromise decree for eviction was passed in favour of the respondent plaintiff, directing the revision petitioner to surrender vacant possession of the plaint schedule property on or before 31.12.1998, failing which allowing the plaintiff to recover possession by instituting execution proceedings. As the petitioner did not surrender possession as directed in the decree, the respondent filed the E.P. The revision petitioner entered appearance before the Court and contended that the decree is not executable and therefore, the E.P. is not maintainable. He contended that the notification issued by the Government of Kerala whereby the minority institutions were exempted from the operation of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act basing which the above suit was filed, is struck down by this Court as ultra vires of the Constitution, by judgment dated 22.11.1999. Therefore, the decree has become void and the execution petition is not maintainable. According to him, the decree holder can seek eviction by instituting separate suit or proceedings under due process of law. The lower court overruled the contentions raised by the judgment debtor and directed delivery of possession of the property.

3. It is not in dispute that the above suit is filed by the respondent against the petitioner for eviction on the basis of the exemption granted by the Government of Kerala from the operation of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act to the buildings owned by the minorities institutions. That notification is struck down by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Krishna Pillai v. Infant Jesus Church (2000 (1) KLT 197) holding that the notification is unconstitutional and ultra vires of S.25 of the Kerala Act 2/1965.

4. The above decree under execution is passed before the above judgment was delivered by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the respondent has contended that the judgment passed by this Court quashing the notification has only prospective operation and it will not affect the judgments and decree passed by the courts before the pronouncement of the judgment by the Division Bench.

5. In the decision in Mani Subrat Jain v. Raja Ram Vohra (AIR 1980 SC 299) the Supreme Court has observed as follows:

"We feel no difficulty in holding that the text, reinforced by the context, especially S.13, convincing includes ex tenants against whom decrees for eviction might have been passed, whether on compromise or otherwise. The effect of the compromise decree, in counsel's submission, is that the tenancy has been terminated. Nobody has a case that the appellant is not continuously in possession. The conclusion is inevitable that he remains a tenant and enjoys immunity under S.13(1). The execution proceedings must, therefore, fail because the statutory road block cannot be removed".

6. In that case a compromise decree was passed in a suit filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant. The landlord sought to evict the tenant from the property in execution of the decree before the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 3/49 came into force. The Supreme Court has held that under S.2(i) and 13(1) of the Act tenant includes quondam tenant continuing in possession and therefore, he is entitled to immunity from eviction under S.13(1). Therefore it is clear that even if a decree for eviction is passed on compromise between the parties or otherwise, that decree can be executed only in terms of the law prevalent on the date the decree is sought to be e