JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - This appeal is by the decree-holders. They are seeking to execute a decree for ejectment. The decree was passed on compromise. The Respondent has filed an objection under sec. 47 of the CPC to the effect that he is saved by the provisions of Act IX of 1940. This Act was not in force when the compromise was made but nothing turns upon that. In order to succeed the Respondent must bring himself within the definition of a non-agricultural tenant in sec. 2. That section expressly excludes a tenant who holds non-agricultural land together with any structure owned by a person under whom such a tenant holds. 2. Under the terms of the petition of compromise the Respondent was given three years' grace in which to evacuate the land and remove the huts. There was a further provision that if he failed to do so, the ownership of the huts would pass to the decree-holders. He failed to do so. The result is that since the 1st of July, 1942, the decree-holders have been the owners of the huts. 3. The execution case was filed on the 19th of January, 1943. On this date the Respondent was not a non-agricultural tenant within the meaning of sec. 2, as the ownership of the huts had passed to the decree-holders. Mr. Choudhury on behalf of the Respondent could only rely upon the fact that he was a non-agricultural tenant at some earlier stage. A non-agricultural tenancy, however, is not a status to last for ever; for example, if this had been an ordinary decree passed 011 contest and the judgment-debtor then sold the huts to the landlord, he could not afterwards be allowed to turn round and say that he is still a non-agricultural tenant. The decisive date is the date upon which the execution case was filed. The orders of both the Courts below are set aside and the objection under sec. 47 of the CPC is dismissed with costs in all Courts--hearing-fee, one gold mohur.