Judgment Horwill, J.-The plaintiff appellant in these appeals sought to have the sale, brought about by his landlord for arrears of rent, set aside on the ground of fraud and material irregularity. Both the Courts below held against him and found that he had shown no cause for setting aside the sale. The suits were dismissed and in appeal the dismissals were confirmed. Then the plaintiff preferred second appeals to this Court. Before the matter came on for consideration by Wadsworth, J., in second appeal, Madras Act XVII of 1946 had been passed, which required all suits to be stayed “which were (a) for the eviction of tenants from their holdings or land.....in which a claim for such eviction was involved......or (b) in which the sale of the holding of a tenant or ryot for recovery of rent is claimed.” The learned Judge did not think that there were any merits in the second appeals as far as the questions in issue in the suits were concerned; and he did not consider that section 4 of the Act applied. As, however, the applicability of section 4 had not been considered by this Court in any decided cases, the legislation being of very recent origin, he, in dismissing the appeal, granted a certificate for leave to appeal under the Letters Patent. A preliminary point has been raised as to whether second appeals lie; but we do not think that there is any substance in that objection. It is not necessary for us to state our reasons, in view of the opinion we are expressing on the point raised in the appeals. We agree with the learned Judge (Wadsworth, J.) that there is no substance in the second appeals. With regard to the applicability of section 4, we are satisfied that in the suits no claims for eviction are involved. As the suits were for setting aside sales already held, the sales were good and binding until set aside. It may be true that as a consequence of the suits being dismissed, the appellant will have to quit the land and be evicted if he is not willing to leave the land of his own accord; but there was no such claim for eviction involved in the suits. It may be true that as a consequence of the suits being dismissed, the appellant will have to quit the land and be evicted if he is not willing to leave the land of his own accord; but there was no such claim for eviction involved in the suits. Moreover [vide sub-clause (b) of section 4(1)] there was no claim in the suits for the sale of the holding for recovery of rent, the suits being to set aside sales already held. The appeals are dismissed with costs in L.P.A. No. 6 of 1947 only. V.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.