Maharajan, J.- This appeal is directed against the judgment of Ganesan, J., under the following circumstances. In O. S. No. 176 of 1111 on the file of the Court of the additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, the 1st plaintiff obtained a decree for eviction against the respondents, their tenants. This decree was granted on 7th Dhanu 1124 (21st December, 1948). As per the decree, the landlord (plaintiff) was liable to pay the tenants 280 fs. 1 ch. and 2 ca. on account of the value of improvements effected by them and the tenants were liable to pay the landlord michavaram or rent at the rate of 190 fs. per annum upto the date of recovery of possession or three years from the date of the decree, whichever was earlier. Three years later, the 1st plaintiff filed E. P. No. 110 of 1951 after depositing into Court 280 fs. o ch. and 2 ca. In this Execution Petition he prayed for recovery of possession of the property and also for recovery of the michavaram due by the tenants for three years from the date of the decree at the rate of 190 fs. per annum. The tenants failed to pay the michavaram due by them. E. P. No. 110 of 1951 was pending for some time. Due to an injunction granted in another suit the plaintiffs could not obtain delivery in E. P. No. 110 of 1951. Consequently the petition was dismissed. The decree-holder died and plaintiffs 2 and 3 were impleaded on 19th August, 1960. The resourceful tenants denied that plaintiffs 2 and 3 were the sons of the decree-holder and a finding was given by the Court that they were the sons. This was done in E. P. No. 831 of 1959. Subsequently, on 12th February, 1963, the tenants filed E. A. No. 141 of 1963 in which they claimed that the value of improvements decreed in their favour on 21st December, 1948 should be refixed and that a Commissioner should be appointed in that behalf. This was opposed by the plaintiffs and it was held by the Court that it was not open to the tenants to reagitate the quantum of improvements which had been already fixed. Then the tenants filed E. A. No. 1135 of 1962 on 15th November, 1962 in which they prayed for two months time for payment of the rent arrears of 570 fs. due by them. They also contended that they were not liable to be evicted from the property because they were protected by the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Act VIII of 1950. Then the landlord filed a petition in which he said that the tenants were not entitled to the protection of the Act and that even assuming that the Act was applicable to them, they were disentitled to the benefits of the Act because they had committed acts of waste. A Commissioner was appointed and accepting the report of the Commissioner, the Court held that acts of waste had been committed by the tenants and consequently directed eviction. In appeal, the appellate Court" set aside the order of eviction on the ground that no wilful act of waste had been committed. The appellate Court also found that the tenants having deposited the arrears of rent due by them, though belatedly, had not forfeited the benefits under the Act. Against this the landlord preferred an appeal to this Court and the learned Judge dismissed the appeal without costs. It is against this judgment that the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed.

2. Under section 4 of the Holdings (Stay of Execution Proceedings) Act, 1950, Travarcore-Cochin Act VIII of 1950, notwithstanding any law to the contrary, proceedings in execution of a decree in a suit for recovery of possession of a holding shall, so far as they relate to the delivery of possession of the holding, be stayed. Admittedly, the property in question is a holding within the meaning of section 2 of the Act. There is a proviso to section 4 which runs as follows:

" Provided that nothing contained in this section shall preclude the Court -

(a) from ordering the delivery of possession of the holding to the decree-holder if the Court is satisfied either that the lessee has committed intentional and wilf

Click Here to Read the rest of this document