S. Ramachandra Iyer, CJ.
1. I am of opinion that the view taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer that the order passed in pursuance of the compromise of a previous application for eviction could be executed on the performance of the conditions specified therein, is correct. There was an application by the landlord for eviction of the tenant but that was compromised on 4th July, 1959. That provided that on the landlord paying a certain sum, the tenant was to surrender possession. The order of the Court ran in terms of the compromise. The result was that there existed an executable order for enforcing surrender of possession. In the present case, the landlord, admittedly, performed his obligations by paying the sum of Rs. 4,000; but the tenant refused to deliver possession. On an application being made to the Revenue Divisional Officer, he directed an eviction order to ensue. This order has been challenged by Sethuratnam on the ground that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to pass a fresh order for eviction without there being an independent application under an appropriate provision of the Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act for eviction. Reliance is placed in support of the argument upon a judgment of this Court in Chinnamuthu Goundar v. Ganapathi Pillai : (1960)2MLJ370 . But there, on the terms of the compromise a fresh relationship of landlord and tenant resulted; the tenant was put in possession of the land for a further period of three years at a different rate of rent. It was therefore held that, when adopting the procedure prescribed by the Act, the previous proceedings which resulted in the compromise could not itself be utilised for the purpose of dislodging the tenant. There is, however, no such thing in the present case, for, the compromise itself has said that, on payment by the landlord of the sum of Rs. 4,000, the tenant is to surrender possession. The order in terms of it will be an executable order. There are therefore no merits in this Civil Revision Petition, which is dismissed with costs.