Judgment :- 1. The short point that arises for consideration in this Second Appeal is as to whether the tenants, who are the appellants before me, are entitled to get restoration of the holding. There is no dispute-about the fact that the decree in the suit was passed on 18-3-1944 and there is also no dispute that the conditions required under S.52 of the Act XXXIII of 1951 are all satisfied. 2. This application was filed by the tenants under S.52 of the said Act for restoration. The trial court directed restoration to be given on deposit of the Kanartham inclusive of puramkadam namely, Rs. 317-13-9. The landlords took up the matter in appeal and the learned Subordinate Judge has reversed the order of the trial court. At the time when the appeal was pending in the lower appellate court, the Madras High Court had to consider the scope of relief to be granted under S.52 of Act 33 of 1951. That decision was by Govinda Menon and Ramaswami, JJ., reported in K. Viswanathan v. K. Kanaran (1956-II-M.L.J. 87). Though the date mentioned in S.52 of the Act was 1st July 1942, the learned judges, after considering the provisions of the various enactments namely of 1945,1951 and 1954, came to the conclusion that S.52 of the Amending Act of 1951 will not apply to cases of decrees passed before 6th December 1945. The lower appellate court, relying upon this decision, held that the tenant in this case, is not entitled to restoration and as such, reversed the order of the trial court and dismissed his application. 3. Against the said order of the learned Subordinate Judge, the tenants have filed this appeal. It is not necessary for me to consider the decision of the Madras High Court referred to above at any great length because a subsequent legislation has supervened namely, the Malabar Tenancy Amending Act XXII of 1956. The decision of the learned judges was mainly based on the ground that S.4 of the Malabar Tenancy Second Amendment Act 1945-Act XXIV of 1945 was not repealed by the 1951 Amending Act; and this was one strong circumstance which influenced the learned judges in coming to the conclusion that S.52 will not apply to cases where the decrees have been passed before 5th December 1945. In the new Act, S.5 specifically repeals S.4 of Madras Act XXIV of 1945. In the new Act, S.5 specifically repeals S.4 of Madras Act XXIV of 1945. Sub-S. 2 of S.5 of the new Act further gives relief to a tenant whose holding has been taken possession of by a landlord in execution of a decree passed on or after 1st July 1942 & if such decree would not have been passed, if the principal Act as amended by Madras Act XXIV/45, XXXIII/51 and XXII/56 had been in force at that time. 4. Therefore applying S.5 of Act XXII of 1956, prima facie the order under appeal, will have to be reversed and the tenant restored to possession. 5. But Mr. V.P. Gopalan Nambiar takes two contentions before me namely, (1) that a fresh application under S.5 Clause.2 of the new Act will have to be filed within 12 months of the commencement of that Act, and (2) that the said Amending Act will not apply to the pending proceedings. 6. I cannot accept both the contentions of Mr. Gopalan Nambiar. A right given under the old S.52 of the 1951 Act is further reiterated in favour of the tenant with further modifications in his favour in sub- section 2 of S.5 of this Act. There is absolutely no requirement about the necessity for filing any fresh application for restoration. If at all, it enlarges the right of a tenant and it will be the height of technicality to hold when an application under an old Act is still pending disposal in the courts and when a subsequent legislation has given him a further right to apply within an enlarged period that the old application has to be rejected. Therefore, this contention of Mr. Gopalan Nambiar fails. 7. I may also state that my learned brother Mr. Justice N. Varadaraja Iyengar in Kandiyil Pulikkal Govindan Nambiar v. Chennuvath Nammi & others, (S.A. 521/57), has taken the same view that it is not necessary that the tenant should file a further application under the new 1956 Act. In that case, the learned judge has held that an application already filed under S.52 of the 1951 Act is sufficient especially, when it was still pending before the courts. 8. In that case, the learned judge has held that an application already filed under S.52 of the 1951 Act is sufficient especially, when it was still pending before the courts. 8. So far as the second point is concerned, no doubt, the Act as such does not give me any assistance, though S.7 of the Act makes specific provision for the new Act applying to proceedings pending before the Rent courts and on appeal therefrom. Courts have always held that a subsequent legislation coming into effect during the pendency of an appeal can be taken into account for moulding the relief to be granted to the parties. See the decision of Sankaran and Joseph, JJ. in Kunjukrishnan v. Krishna Pillai (1958 K.L.T. 645); S. A. 180/56 (Raman Padmanabh Panicker v. Unniravi M.N. Parameswara Pillai & others) decided by the learned Chief Justice and myself and S. A 367/55 (Poranchu v. Ouseph and others) decided by my myself. In all these cases, when a new legislation came into force during the pendency of a litigation in an appellate court it has been taken into account for granting appropriate reliefs to the parties. Therefore, applying those principles, in my view, the provisions of this Act can be availed of by the tenant and suitable directions given on the strength of those provisions contained therein. . 9. In this view, the second appeal will have to be allowed and the tenant directed to be restored to possession. The order of the lower appellate court is set aside and that of the trial court restored. As the appellant succeeds by virtue of a new legislation, parties will bear their own costs throughout. No leave. Allowed.