S. Maharajan, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai dismissing the appellant's appeal against the order of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town in Execution Petition No. 72 of 1971 in Original Petition No. 92 of 1964. In O.S. No. 481 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Madurai Town, the appellant sued for ejectment of the respondent, his tenant. The tenant filed O.P. No. 92 of 1964 under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, which despite contest, was allowed.... Both the parties preferred appeals to the District Court, Madurai, which in modification of the order passed by the District Munsif, directed the tenant to pay the landlord a sum of Rs. 5006-25 towards compensation for the property in question within three months from the date of that order. The appellate Court further directed that on the amount being paid or deposited into Court, O.P. No. 92 of 1964 shall stand allowed and in default of such payment or deposit the said O.P. shall stand dismissed. In pursuance of that order, the tenant deposited the amount into Court but the landlord failed to execute a conveyance in favour of the tenant, whereupon the tenant filed Execution Petition No. 724 of 1971 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Madurai Town for a direction to the landlord to execute a conveyance in his favour in accordance with the order of the appellate Court. This execution petition was opposed by the landlord on the ground that no execution petition was maintainable inasmuch as the tenant had not obtained any final decretal order as contemplated under Section 9 (3) of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act. Another ground urged was that the tenant was liable to pay Rs. 750-00 on account of arrears of rent after making the necessary adjustments and that he was not entitled to ask for a conveyance without payment of that amount. Both these contentions were over-ruled by the District Munsif who approved the draft sale-deed produced by the tenant and directed him to produce a fair sale-deed. Against this order, the landlord preferred C.M.A. No. 48 of 1972 on the file of the Court of First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The sole objection raised in appeal was that the execution petition was not maintainable in law. The appellate Court held that the execution petition was maintainable and dismissed the appeal without costs. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.
2. Under Section 9(1)(a) of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, any tenant who is entitled to compensation under Section 3 and against whom a suit in ejectment has been instituted may within the period prescribed apply to the Court for an order that the landlord shall be directed to sell for a price to be fixed by the Court, the whole or part of, the extent of the land specified in the application.
3. Under Section 9(1)(b) on such application, the Court shall first decide the minimum extent of the land, which may be necessary for the convenient enjoyment by the tenant and then proceed to fix the price of the minimum extent of the land and then order that within a period to be determined by the Court the tenant shall pay into Court or otherwise as directed the price so fixed in one or more installments with or without interest.
4. Under Section 9(2), in default of payment by the tenant of any one installment, the application shall stand dismissed. Under Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 9 on payment of the price fixed under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1), the Court shall pass an order directing the conveyance by the landlord to the tenant of the extent of land for which the said price was fixed. The Court shall by the same order direct the tenant to put the landlord into possession of the remaining extent of the land, if any. Under Section 9(3)(b), on the order referred to in Clause (a) being made the suit or proceeding shall stand dismissed and any decree or order in ejectment that might have been passed therein but which has not been executed shall be vacated.
5. It is clear from a perusal of the several clauses in Section 9, that only one application by the tenant is contemplated. It is not as if he has to file a separate application at every stage. Admittedly before the execution petition was filed by the tenant an order had been passed fixing the minimum extent of land necessary for the convenient enjoyment by the tenant and fixing also the price of the minimum extent of the land decided as aforesaid. Further the Court has also by its order directed the tenant to deposit into Court the price fixed by it. It is admitted that a sum of Rs. 5006-25 was fixed by the Court, which has been deposited by the tenant into Court on 3rd November, 1969. In fact, this amount was fixed by the appellate Court in modification . of the amount fixed by the Court of first instance. After this modification, the trial Court ought to have called O.P. No. 92 of 1964 on or after the date fixed for the deposit of the amount by the tenant. Because it failed to do so the tenant filed an execution petition on the basis that he could execute the order already passed by the Court. This gave the landlord a handle to raise the objection that no execution petition was maintainable. It was also contended that only by way of interlocutory application the tenant should have prayed for further orders from Court. I am clear in my mind that neither an interlocutory application nor an execution petition is required by the statute to be filed by the tenant. It is the duty of the Court, after receiving the original petition filed by the tenant, to keep that petition pending till it goes through all the stages contemplated in Section 9 and final orders are passed either directing the conveyance by the landlord to the tenant and directing the tenant to put the landlord into possession of the remaining extent, or in case, the tenant fails to deposit the amount within the prescribed period, dismissing the application itself. The execution petition filed by the tenant must be regarded as a reminder to the Court to take up the Original Petition and proceed with it till the culmination of the proceedings contemplated in Section 9(3)(a). It is not as if any executable order has been passed by the Court when it directed the tenant to deposit the amount. It was merely a direction which had to be followed by further orders, either of dismissal in case of default or of direction to the landlord to execute a conveyance in case the deposit was made.
6. I, therefore, hold that the objection raised by the landlord is entirely misconceived and both the Courts below have passed orders on the erroneous basis; that an execution petition was necessary. I direct that the Execution Petition filed by the tenant be treated merely as a reminder to the Court to take up O.P. No. 92 of 1964 at the stage at which it was left, and as a prayer to proceed with it in accordance with the provisions embodied in Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921.
7. The result is that the appeal will stand dismissed, but, under the circumstances, without costs.