ORDER : K.L. PANDEY, J. 1. This is an application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for revising an order dated 26 September 1964 whereby the District Judge, Jabalpur, dismissed the applicant's appeal under section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) against an order fixing reasonable rent under section 9 (4) of that Act. 2. It is common ground that the applicant owns house No. 1571 of Wright Town, Jabalpur, and that the non-applicant occupied it as a tenant in return for Rs. 40 as monthly rent. By a notice to quit dated 30 January 1961, which was duly served on the non-applicant, the tenancy was determined wish effect from 28 February 1961. Thereupon, on 1 March 1961, the applicant filed Civil Suit No. 96-A of 1961 for ejectment founded on some of the grounds mentioned in section 4 of that Act and also for arrears of rent and mesne profits. On 4 September 1961, the Court of first instance passed against the non-applicant a decree for ejectment, arrears of rent upto the end of February 1961 and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 40 per month from the date of institution of the suit. Two successive appeals filed by the non-applicant were dismissed on 16th October 1961 and 13th March 1962 respectively. In the meantime, on 8th March 1961, the non-applicant filed a suit under section 9 (4) of the Act for fixation of reasonable rent. That suit was contested inter alia on the ground that, since the tenancy had been terminated with effect from the end of February 1961, the Rent Controlling Authority had no jurisdiction to fix reasonable rent. That Authority overruled the contention and, by its order dated 30th November 1961, fixed for the house Rs. 20.74 as reasonable monthly rent. As already indicated, the appeal filed against that order was dismissed. 3. Having heard the counsel, I have reached the conclusion that the view taken by the learned District Judge is clearly erroneous and cannot be sustained. The District Judge has relied upon Shyamlal v. Umacharan 1960 M P L J 1002 (F. B.) for the view that the non-applicant continued to be a statutory tenant till the second appeal was decided on 30 March 1992 and that he was, therefore, entitled to protection upto that date. The District Judge has relied upon Shyamlal v. Umacharan 1960 M P L J 1002 (F. B.) for the view that the non-applicant continued to be a statutory tenant till the second appeal was decided on 30 March 1992 and that he was, therefore, entitled to protection upto that date. The counsel for the non-applicant rightly conceded that this case is not covered by the categories mentioned in the Full Bench case. As laid down in that case itself, the protection afforded to a tenant, whose tenancy was determined after the commencement of the Act, was provided by section 4 of the Act. If his tenancy had been determined by a quit notice, he continued to be protected if no suit under section 4 was filed or, if such a suit was filed, it failed either in the Court of first instance or in appeal. In other words, the tenant could be protected only so long as there was no suit contemplated by section 4 of the Act followed by a decree for ejectment. Once there came into existence a decree for ejectment in such a suit, the purpose of the protection was fulfilled and effect had to be given to the decree itself without being oppressed by vague ideas of affording protection to the statutory tenant. In other words, no protection could be claimed or allowed against a decree passed in a suit under section 4 of the Act. The reason is obvious. It was found in the previously instituted suit, which was also decided earlier, that the tenancy came to an end on 28 February 1961 and that, thereafter, the non-applicant was a trespasser who was liable to pay, not rent, but mesne profits. These conclusions were affirmed in two successive appeals. On general principles, they operated as res judicata and it was not open to the non-applicant to contend, or the Rent Controlling Authority to accept, that there subsisted a statutory tenancy even after 28 February 1961 or that the non-applicant continued to remain liable to pay rent and not mesne profits. For this principle, I may refer to Gulabchand v. State of Gujarat AIR 1965 S C 1153. 4. For this principle, I may refer to Gulabchand v. State of Gujarat AIR 1965 S C 1153. 4. The learned District Judge has not only overlooked the principle of res judicata but he seems to think, in disregard of another principle, namely that a judgment only declares and gives effect to, and does not create, the rights of parties which pre-exist, that the statutory tenancy continued upto the date of decision of the second appeal (30 March 1962). The view taken by the District Judge will have the following absurd consequences: (i) Mesne profits for the period 1 March 1961 to 30 March 1962, as decreed by the first Court and affirmed in two successive appeals, will be deemed to be set aside. (ii) The non-applicant will be able to resist execution of the decree for those profits on the basis of the order of the Rent Controlling Authority. 5. Before closing, I would like to observe that, in a case like this, the Rent Controlling Authority should stay its proceedings until the decision of the previously instituted ejectment suit which would decide conclusively whether, at the relevant time, the tenancy did or did not subsist. 6. The revision succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 26 September 1964 and 30 November 1961 are set aside. The non-applicant shall bear his own costs throughout and pay those incurred by the applicant. Hearing fee Re. 50.