Subba Rao, J.
1. The respondents filed O.S. No. 1158 of 1946 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff of Calicut for possession of the suit property. The 1st defendant is the usufructuary mortgagee. The second defendant is a lessee under the first defendant. The second defendant applied for stay of trial of the suit under Section 4(1) of Act XVII of 1946, but the learned District Munsiff dismissed the application on the ground that the first defendant was not a tenant within the meaning of the Act. The second defendant has preferred this revision petition.
2. Subsequent to the filing of the revision petition a Bench of this Court held in Govindan Nair v. Appu Kutty Since reported in : (1949)1MLJ475 . (C.R.P. No. 1090 of 1947) that a usufructuary mortgagee is a tenant who is entitled to relief under Madras Act XVII of 1946. As this is a Bench decision I am bound by it. Mr. Ramakrishna Aiyar argued that even so the petitioner is not entitled to the relief, because he is only a sublessee, and that it has been held by this Court that a sub-lessee is not a tenant within the meaning of the Malabar Tenancy Act. This argument ignores the scope of Section 4 of the Madras Act XVII of 1946. Under Section 4(1) of the Act:
all suits for eviction of tenants from their holdings shall be stayed subject to the provisions of the following Sub-sections.
Under Clause 2 the tenant will have to deposit rent for particular periods as a condition precedent for obtaining an order of stay. Under Clause 6 such deposit can be made not only by the tenant or the ryot but by any person whose interests are likely to be affected by the eviction or sale of the holding or land.' It is impossible to contend that a sub-lessee is not a person whose interests are likely to be affected by the eviction. If so, he would be entitled to deposit the amount. Section 4 or any other section of the Act does not say that the stay can only be granted on an application made by the tenant. When the deposit is made and when the other conditions of the section are satisfied, the Court is bound to stay the suit. In this case, the first defendant is a tenant within the meaning of the Act. It is not disputed that the amounts are deposited. It follows that the petitioner will be entitled to the stay under the Act.
3. Mr. Ramakrishna Aiyar relied upon the decision of Yahya Ali, J., in C. R. P. No. 1711 of 1947 in support of his contention that a sub-lessee cannot apply for stay of a suit for eviction. The learned Judge based his judgment on the fact that, the lease in that case had expired and therefore the sub-lessee under the lessee had no higher rights than the lessor himself. In effect he held that the sub-lessee's interests were not affected, within the meaning of Clause 6 of Section 4. That judgment has no application to the facts of this case.
4. The revision petition is allowed with costs.