This Appeal against the Judgment of Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., in C.M.S. A. No. 130 of 1954 arises in the following circumstances. One Marudappa Chettiar filed O.S. No. 675 of 1952 in the Court of the District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, against Venugopala Chettiar, the respondent herein, for recovery of possession of the property in dispute and for past and future rents. In that suit the parties entered into a compromise and based on that compromise the Court passed a decree directing the respondent herein to deliver possession of the property by 15th March, 1954 and also to pay past and future rents. As the respondent failed to deliver possession by the prescribed date, the plaintiff-decree-holder filed E.P. No. 240 of 1954 on 18th March, 1954, for delivery of possession. An order for delivery was passed on 12th April, 1954, directing delivery by 10th June, 1954. On 15th April, 1954, the respondent filed an appeal to the District Court, Tiruchirapalli, against the order for delivery (A.S. No. 177 of 1954). In that appeal he obtained on ex parte order of stay on 15th April, 1954, itself. On 27th May, 1954, the original decree-holder Marudappa Chettiar died. On 8th July, 1954, the District Court dismissed A.S. No. 177 of 1954 on the ground that the order of delivery was right. The learned Judge inter alia observed as follows:-

"The right given to a tenant by section 7 of the Act is a substantive right and there is nothing in the Act to indicate that it is retrospective in the application. Therefore, there can be no question of applying the provisions of the Act, so as to hold that the order of delivery passed against the appellant is wrong. It is urged that section 7 not merely vests a right in the appellant but prohibits the Court from evicting him. If that is so, it is for the appellant to ask the Court which is threatening to evict him to stay his hands (whether it is bound to do so or not is not a matter on which I am expressing any opinion) ; not to come in appeal against an order which is perfectly proper and legal."

Apparently the view taken by the learned District Judge was that section 7 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act would not make the original order for possession ipso facto invalid, but it might be that the judgment-debtor could object to actual eviction in pursuance of the order. After the dismissal of his appeal the respondent filed an application, E.A. No. 845 of 1954 on 12th July, 1954, for stay of execution. Meanwhile the son of Marudappa Chettiar, the present appellant before us, filed an application on the same day that he may be added as legal representative of the decree-holder praying for a decree directing delivery of possession of the suit property to him. The ground taken by the respondent was that the Rent Control Act had been extended to the village in which the property was situated on and from 16th June, 1954 and therefore the decree-holder’s legal representative could not evict him. The learned District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli overruled the respondent’s objection and brought the appellant before us as the legal representative of the deceased decree-holder and passed again another order for delivery of possession to the legal representative. Against this order of the District Munsif the respondent filed an appeal, A.S. No. 261 of 1954 which was heard and disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli. He dismissed the appeal on the ground that section 7 of the Act would not apply to pending execution proceedings, that is to say, to the prior execution petition wherein an order for eviction had already been passed. From this order the respondent preferred an appeal to this Court, C.M.S.A. No. 130 of 1954 which came up for decision before Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. The only question argued before him was whether the Rent Control Act whose application had been extended to the village in which the property was situated only on 16th June, 1954, would prevent th