Dixit, J. - (1.)THIS revision petition arises of proceedings in execution of a decree eviction. On 22 -3 -1948 the applicant obtain from the Court of City Sub -judge, Lashkar a decree against the non -applicant Dandekar for arrears of rent and for ejectment from house. When the decree -holder took out exection of the decree on 3 -4 -1948, the judgment debtor took the objection that under Section (sic) Gwalior State Accommodation Control Ordinance of Samvat 2004 he could not be ejected as the decree for ejectment was passed before the date of the commencement of the said Ordinance and that the decree for ejectment was (sic) made on any of the grounds mentioned in State of the Ordinance.
The executing Court took the view (sic) though the decree satisfied the requirements Section 3 of the Ordinance, the judgment -debtor tenant could not be ejected while the Ordinance remained in force as the tenant had agreed pay to the landlord the higher rent prescribes in the proviso to Section 7 of the Ordinance. Accordingly on 9 -8 -1948 the executing Court reject the decree -holder's prayer for ejectment.

After the repeal in 1950 of the Gwalior (sic) Accommodation Control Ordinance and the (sic) ing into force of the Madhya Bharat Rent Control Act, 1950 the decree -holder again present an application for ejectment of the non -applicant. This application was rejected by the (sic) Judge First Class, Lashkar, holding that the tenant had paid to the landlord the arre (sic) of rent due under the decree, he could not ejected under Section 11, Madhya Bharat Rent, Control Act, 1950. In appeal the learned District Judge, agreed with he decision of the -Judge First Class. The decree -holder has now (sic) up in revision to this Court.

(2.)I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. In my opinion the decision of the lower that the decree -holder is not entitled to the tenant is not correct. In coming to the conclusion they did, the Courts below have not properly construed the provisions of Section 11, Madhya Bharat Rent Control Act, 1950.
That section says that no decree for the eviction of a tenant from any accommodation passed before the date of the commencement of the Act shall in so far as it relates to the eviction of the tenant, be executed against him as long as the Act remains in force except on any of grounds mentioned in Section 4 of the Act. The proviso to Section 11 reads as follows:

Provided that the tenant has paid to the landlord the rent payable under the decree.

It is plain from the wording of Section 11 that a tenant is protected from ejectment under a decree passed before commencement of the Act (sic) if any of the grounds mentioned in Section 4 of the Act do not exist and if the tenant has paid to the landlord the rent due from him under the decree. In the absence of any of the (sic) conditions, the tenant cannot claim any protection against ejectment. If, therefore any of the grounds, for ejectment mentioned in Section 4 of the Act exist then irrespective of the fact whether the tenant has or has not complied with the requirements of the proviso to Section 11, is liable to be ejected under Section 11.

The Courts below have construed the proviso to Section 11 as giving protection to the tenant from ejectment on mere payment of the rent decreed even if any one of the (sic) ounds mentioned in Section 4 of the Act exist for (sic)ction. Such a construction of the proviso is consistent with the meaning of the main (sic) sion of Section 11. Under Section 11 read Section 4, the judgment -debtor tenant is protected from ejectment only in any of the (sic) unds specified in Section 4 for ejectment do not (sic) and that too if the tenant has paid to the landlord the rent decreed. The mere payment the rent decree is not sufficient under Section 4 or for resisting ejectment. In the present case is common ground that the decree for ejectment was made on a ground which is now (sic) vered by Section 4(a). The non -applicant cannot, therefore, say that under Section 11 he cannot be (sic) ted.

(3.)MR . Sapre learned Counsel for the non -applicant contended that as Section 19, Madhya Bharat Rent Control Act continues in force orders made under the repealed Gwalior State Accommodation Control Ordinance, Samvat 2004, order passed by the executing Court 9 -8 -1948 that under Section 7 of the Ordinance the non -applicant could not be ejected as he had (sic) ed to pay to the landlord the maximum rent mentioned in the proviso to Section 7, must be held be operative even after the coming into force the Madhya Bharat Rent Control Act, 1950 (sic) that, therefore, the non -applicant was not able to be ejected. There is no force in this attention.
Section 7 of the Ordinance, itself provided that execution of a decree for eviction shall be (sic) ended under that section only so long as Ordinance remained in force. If, therefore, execution of the ejectment decree against the non -applicant was stayed under Section 7 of the Ordinance, the stay was effective only for the duration of the Ordinance. Section 19, Madhya Bharat Rent Control Act, 1950 does not continue the operation of an order under the repealed Ordinance, which has been ended by the provisions of the repealed Ordinance itself. Again Section 19 of the Act of 1950 continues only those orders made under the repealed Ordinance which are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Rent Control Act of 1950. The order passed on 9 -8 -1948 if continued would have the effect of protecting the non -applicant from ejectment on mere payment of rent although there exists a ground for his ejectment under Section 4 of the Rent Control Act, 1950.

As already pointed out under Section 11 a judgment -debtor tenant is not protected from ejectment merely on the ground that he has paid the rent decreed or has agreed to pay a certain maximum rent.