ORDER : 1. This revision petition arises out of proceedings in execution of a decree for eviction. On 22-3-1948 the applicant obtained from the Court of City Sub-judge, Lashkar a decree against the non-applicant Dandekar for arrears of rent and for ejectment from a house. When the decree-holder took out execution of the decree on 3-4-1948, the judgment-debtor took the objection that under S. 7, Gwalior State Accommodation Control Ordinance of Samvat 2004 he could not be ejected as the decree for ejectment was passed before the date of the commencement of the said Ordinance and that the decree for ejectment was not made on any of the grounds mentioned in S. 3 of the Ordinance. The executing Court took the view that though the decree satisfied the requirements of S. 3 of the Ordinance, the judgment-debtor tenant could not be ejected while the Ordinance remained in force as the tenant had agreed to pay to the landlord the higher rent prescribed in the proviso to S. 7 of the Ordinance. Accordingly on 9-8-1948 the executing Court rejected the decree-holder's prayer for ejectment. After the repeal in 1950 of the Gwalior State Accommodation Control Ordinance and the coming into force of the Madhya Bharat Rent Control Act, 1950 the decree-holder again presented, an application for ejectment of the non-applicant. This application was rejected by the Civil Judge First Class, Lashkar, holding that as the tenant had paid to the landlord the arrears of rent due under the decree, he could not be ejected under S. 11, Madhya Bharat Rent Control Act, 1950. In appeal the learned District Judge agreed with the decision of the Civil Judge First Class. The decree-holder has now come up in revision to this Court. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In my opinion the decision of the lower court that the decree-holder is not entitled to eject the tenant is not correct. In coming to the conclusion they did, the Courts below have not properly construed the provisions of S. 11, Madhya Bharat Rent Control Act, 1950. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In my opinion the decision of the lower court that the decree-holder is not entitled to eject the tenant is not correct. In coming to the conclusion they did, the Courts below have not properly construed the provisions of S. 11, Madhya Bharat Rent Control Act, 1950. That section says that no decree for the eviction of a tenant from any accommodation passed before the date of the commencement of the Act, shall in so far as it relates to the eviction of the tenant, be executed against him as long as the Act remains in force except on any of the grounds mentioned in S. 4 of the Act. The proviso to S. 11 reads as follows : "Provided that the tenant has paid to the landlord the rent payable under the decree." 3. It is plain from the wording of S. 11 that a tenant is protected from ejectment under a decree passed before commencement of the Act only if any of the grounds mentioned in S. 4 of the Act do not exist and if the tenant has paid to the landlord the rent due from him under the decree. In the absence of any of these conditions, the tenant cannot claim any protection against ejectment. If, therefore any of the grounds for ejectment mentioned in S. 4 of the Act exist then irrespective of the fact whether the tenant has or has not complied with the requirements o£ the proviso to S. 11, he is liable to be ejected under S. 11. The Courts below have construed the proviso to Section 11 as giving protection to the tenant from ejectment on mere payment of the rent decreed even if any one of the grounds mentioned in S. 4 of the Act exist for eviction. Such a construction of the proviso is not consistent with the meaning of the main provision of Section 11. Under Section 11 read with Section 4, the judgment-debtor tenant is protected from ejectment only in any of the grounds specified in S. 4 for ejectment do not exist and that too if the tenant has paid to the landlord the rent decreed. The mere payment of the rent decree is not sufficient under S. 4 or 11 for resisting ejectment. The mere payment of the rent decree is not sufficient under S. 4 or 11 for resisting ejectment. In the present case it is common ground that the decree for ejectment was made on a ground which is now covered by S. 4(a). The non-applicant cannot, therefore, say that under S. 11 he cannot be ejected. 4. Mr. Sapre learned counsel for the non-applicant contended that as S. 19, Madhya Bharat Rent Control Act continues in force orders made under the repealed Gwalior State Accommodation Control Ordinance, Samyat 2004, the order passed by the executing Court on 9-8-1948 that under S. 7 of the Ordinance the non-applicant could not be ejected as he had agreed to pay to the landlord the maximum rent mentioned in the proviso to S. 7, must be held to be operative even after the coming into force Of the Madhya Bharat Rent Control Act, 1950 and that, therefore, the non-applicant was not liable to be ejected. There is no force in this contention. Section 7 of the Ordinance, itself provided that the execution of a decree for eviction shall be suspended under that section only so long as the Ordinance remained, in force. If, therefore, the execution of the ejectment decree against the non-applicant was stayed under S. 7 of the Ordinance, the stay was effective only for the duration of the Ordinance. Section 19, Madhya Bharat Rent Control Act, 1950 does not continue the operation of an order under the re-pealed Ordinance, which has been ended by the provisions of the repealed Ordinance itself. Again S. 19 of the Act of 1950 continues only those orders made under the repealed Ordinance which are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Rent Control Act of 1950. The order passed on 9-8-1948 if continued would have the effect of protecting the non-applicant from ejectment on mere payment of rent although there exists a ground for his ejectment under S. 4 of the Rent Control Act, 1950. As already pointed out under S. 11 a judgment-debtor tenant is not protected from ejectment merely on the ground that he has paid the rent decreed or has agreed to pay a certain maximum rent. 5. For the above reasons I set aside the order of the executing Court refusing to execute the decree for ejectment. As already pointed out under S. 11 a judgment-debtor tenant is not protected from ejectment merely on the ground that he has paid the rent decreed or has agreed to pay a certain maximum rent. 5. For the above reasons I set aside the order of the executing Court refusing to execute the decree for ejectment. The executing Court will now dispose of the application for execution of the ejectment decree according to law. The applicant shall get his costs throughout from the non-applicant. Order accordingly.