JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal against an order of Mukherji, J., dated the 21st November, 1963 dismissing the petition and discharging the Rule. 2. The facts are very clearly stated in the judgment of the Court below and I shall only repeat the essential facts. The application was made by a number of displaced persons and the matter arises in respect of proceedings under the Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons and Eviction of Persons in Unauthorised occupation of Land Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act'") and the Rules made thereunder known as the Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons and Eviction of Persons in Unauthorised occupation of Land Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Rules". The appellants and the Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 were declared as bona fide displaced persons from Pakistan, in unauthorised occupation at 13/2, Munshipara Lane in the city of Calcutta. The respondent Nos. 4 to 8 purchased a portion of the said premises. They filed an application before the 'competent authority" under the said Act for compensation and eviction of the said petitioners. On the 1st may, 1953 the competent authority passed an order declaring the appellants and respondent Nos. 9 and 10 as bona fide refugees and ordering that they should vacate the premises within ninety days from the date of the order but also holding that they were entitled to protection under section 4, and therefore, a copy of the order should be communicated to the Commissioner, relief and Rehabilitation for furnishing alternative accommodation. By an order dated the 1st December, 1953 the persons in unauthorised occupation were ordered to pay compensation until they vacated the rooms. So far as the applicants in the court below are concerned, they failed to pay any compensation or consideration for occupation. An application was made for execution on the 3rd January, 1s59. On the 13th April, 1959 after hearing all parties, the Competent Authority passed the following order: "the case is put up today for hearing of the show cause matter. Sree B. K. Chakraborty, Pleader appears on behalf of the owner applicants. The occupants are also present. No cause is shown. * * * the occupants are admittedly in default. It is accordingly ordered that the protection order be vacated and the occupants are hereby directed to vacate the disputed property. Sree B. K. Chakraborty, Pleader appears on behalf of the owner applicants. The occupants are also present. No cause is shown. * * * the occupants are admittedly in default. It is accordingly ordered that the protection order be vacated and the occupants are hereby directed to vacate the disputed property. It appears that occupant No. 4 Sree ashutosh Dewan, who is a doctor is wilfully avoiding to pay consideration. It further transpires that he is not personally liying in the disputed room and that the room is being possessed by him through his son who is also a practising physician. Let the execution of the decree of eviction be proceeded with against him for his eviction. As regards occupants Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 7 it appears that they are too poor to pay any consideration at present or in the: near future. They pray for one month's time to vacate. The prayer is allowed and they are hereby directed to vacate the disputed property by 13-5-63 failing which, they will be evicted under due process of law. " On the occupants failing to vacate, the owners proceeded to execute the order after applying for police help. Thereafter the occupants preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 24 of 1959 from the said order raising among other grounds a point of limitation before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by an order dated the 15th march, 1960 dismissed the point of limitation but made the following order: "let the appellants occupants pay for the consideration the full amount in respect of the current month and the amount due for three months in respect of the arrears the first payment to be made within a month from the date of this judgment and thereafter every month. So long as these payments are made, eviction will be stayed until alternative accommodation has been provided according to law. If, however, the occupants fail to make the payments as directed above, the decree for the eviction will be executed. " The occupants filed an application for review of this order but by an order dated the 25th April, 1960 the same was rejected. Against the order of eviction and the order of the Tribunal, an application under Article 226 of the Constitution was made in the Court below. Before I proceed further, it is necessary to deal with the provisions of the said Act. Against the order of eviction and the order of the Tribunal, an application under Article 226 of the Constitution was made in the Court below. Before I proceed further, it is necessary to deal with the provisions of the said Act. The said Act is an Act to provide for the rehabilitation of displaced persons and eviction persons in unauthorised occupation of lands and for certain matters connected therewith. Under section 3 (1), an owner of any land may at any time before the expiry of the 31st day of march, 1957 make an application in the prescribed manner to the "competent authority" for the eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation of the land provided that such unauthorised occupation commenced before the 1st day of October, 1946. Sub-section (2) provides that on receipt of such application, the Competent authority shall make such enquiry as it thinks fit, and shall, by notice served in the prescribed manner on every person who appears to it upon such enquiry to be in unauthorised occupation of the land, require him to show cause within thirty days of the service of the notice why he should not vacate the land and pay to the owner, compensation for unauthorised occupation. Under sub-section (3), the "competent Authority" after such proceedings may order any person in unauthorised occupation to vacate the land within such time, not being less than thirty days from the date of the order and may fix such compensation as he may deem fit. Under sub-section (4), if any person against whom an order under sub-section (3) has been made directing to vacate the land, refuses or fails to vac ate the land within the time fixed, then the order may be executed in the manner prescribed. We now come to section 4 which gives some protection to displaced persons. The provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4 are set out below :- "notwithstanding anything continued in section 3, no order under sub-section (3) of that section shall be executed if the person in respect of whom the order has been made is a displaced person who on the 31st day of December, 1950, was in unauthorised occupation of the land referred to in that sub-section, until the State Government provides for him in the prescribed manner. " Section 9 provides that any sum payable under an order of the Competent authority or of the Tribunal as consideration, compensation, premium or rent shall be recoverable in the manner stated therein. 3. I now come to the facts of the present case, which have been set out above. It will appear that the petitioners in the Court below (the appellants and respondents Nos. 9 and 10 herein did neither vacate the land nor pay any compensation therefor or any consideration. The argument in the court below as well as before us is that they could not be ejected without finding alternative accommodation. There is no dispute that alternative accommodation has not been found. The learned Judge in the court below has however held that upon a consideration of section 4 (1), it must be held that there were two conditions for receiving protection under that provision of law. The first was that alternative accommodation should be found and the second was that until it was so found, the persons in unauthorised occupation would continue to occupy the land upon payment of such compensation as the Competent Authority may order the learned Judge has held that if the person in unauthorised occupation did not pay the consideration, he was not entitled to protection, simply because alternative accommodation had not been found. We entirely agree with the interpretation of the learned Judge. It would be absurd to hold that the person in unauthorised occupation can continue to hold the land although compensation has been assessed, without payment of the same or without paying any consideration at all for such continued occupation. It is not disputed that no consideration has been paid and, therefore, the petitioners in the Court below are not entitled to any protection. 4. It is next argued that part of the compensation order was barred by limitation and, therefore, the decree cannot be executed. The learned Judge has rightly pointed out that the nonpayment of consideration for occupation was a continuing cause of action and if at the time when the execution application had been made, there was any default of the payment of the consideration, the bar against execution is not there at all. It must be borne in mind that in this case, there is no material at all to show that there was any payment at all at any stage. It must be borne in mind that in this case, there is no material at all to show that there was any payment at all at any stage. What is argued is that part of the consideration having become barred, the execution application is not maintainable. This argument must at once be rejected as being without substance. An application for execution will be barred if the person in unauthorised occupation has the protection under section 4. In this case he has not. There is, therefore, no impediment to the application for execution. The next and the last point that has been argued before us is that, pending the hearing of the application and the appeal, there has been an amendment of the said Act and it is argued that because of the amendment, the execution application can no longer be pursued. In reality, there has not been any amendment. What has happened is that by the Rehabilitation of Displaced persons and Eviction of Persons in unauthorised Occupation of Land (Continuance of Provisions) Act, 1964 it has been provided that notwithstanding the expiry of the said Act, any proceeding pending on the 31st day of March 1964 in which an order of eviction was passed by a competent Authority, under section 3 of the said Act, against a person in unauthorised occupation of any land would continue as if the said Act had not expired. This Act makes provision as to the Court where the execution would continue. What has happened is that, in pursuance of the Act, the original execution application has been re-allocated and is continuing in the proper Court. We do not find any substance in this argument. Under the provision of the continuing Act, the execution application is till alive and the execution can proceed. In fact, neither on facts nor in law, is there any substance in the application. The appellants who were adjudicated as unauthorised persons in occupation of land would not pay a pice for occupation and would not vacate the land. On many occasions, some of them agreed in Court to vacate, as appears from the Court records, and the maximum tolerance was shown to them. By their own action, they have precluded themselves from any protection of the said Act and the rules. On many occasions, some of them agreed in Court to vacate, as appears from the Court records, and the maximum tolerance was shown to them. By their own action, they have precluded themselves from any protection of the said Act and the rules. Under the circumstances, the learned Judge in the Court below was right in dismissing the application and discharging the Rule. 5. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs. It may be noted that the appeal against the respondents Nos. 6 and 7 had already been dismissed by order dated 2nd September 1966. All interim orders are vacated.