Judgment The order sought to be revised is obviously wrong. The suit is for redemption and recovery with arrears of michavaram and for possession of one item of property for the plaintiff’s own bona fide cultivation. The defendants who are in possession of the properties contended that they are entitled to the stay of the suit under section 55 of the Malabar Tenancy Act (Act XXXIII of 1951). The learned District Munsif accepted the contention and stayed the suit without liability on the part of the defendants to deposit any amount as and towards rent. The view taken by the learned District Munsif is that it is a case to which section 55 would apply and not section 54 (2). Section 54 (2) of Act XXXIII, of 1951 provides: “The Madras Tenants and Ryots Protection Act, 1949, in so far as it applies to tenants in the district of Malabar......shall stand repealed with effect from such date as the State Government may, by notification in the Fort St. George Gazette, appoint.” The question is whether the suit transaction is one which comes within the scope of Madras Act XXIV of 1949 (Madras Tenants and Ryots Protection Act). That Act was held to apply to the tenants of the Malabar district governed by the Malabar Tenancy Act and as such this is a case where the suit transaction is one to which Act XXIV of 1949 is applicable. Under Act XXIV of 1949 a tenant will not be entitled to stay under section 4 unless he deposits within two months into Court the arrears of rent claimed in the plaint or an amount equivalent to the rent for two years. The deposit is a condition precedent for the grant of stay under Act XXIV of 1949. The learned District Munsif therefore erred by granting stay without any deposit on the wrong assumption that section 54(2) is not applicable but section 55 of Act XXXIII of 1951 applies. Section 55 of the Act of 1951 applies only to all suits, appeals and other proceedings which are not governed by section 54(2). It has already been seen that section 54(2) applies by reason of the Madras Tenants and Ryots Protection Act of 1949 to the suit transaction. The order of the lower Court is therefore erroneous and is set aside. It has already been seen that section 54(2) applies by reason of the Madras Tenants and Ryots Protection Act of 1949 to the suit transaction. The order of the lower Court is therefore erroneous and is set aside. But the petition has really become infructuous by reason of the stay either under Act XXIV of 1949 or Act XXXIII of 1951 having ceased on the passing of the Amending Act VII of 1954 to the Malabar Tenancy Act. This civil revision petition is therefore dismissed but the petitioner is entitled to his costs from the respondents. K.S. ----- Petition dismissed.