Judgment :- 1. This motion is by a landlord who has obtained a decree for arrears of rent, over Rs. 10,000/-. In execution of the decree he has purchased the tenancy right on 27 31967 for Rs. 5005/-. The judgment-debtor filed an application under Order XXI R.90 CPC. to have the sale set aside. While it was pending, the Act IX of 1967 came into force on 30 71967, and the executing Court stayed the enquiry on that application. 2. On 7 91967 the decree holder moved for a receiving order for the property purchased by him and it was allowed on 141968 and a receiver appointed. Soon thereafter the judgment-debtor, the 3rd defendant, offered Rs. 2568/-as the price of one year's rent and moved for a discharge of the receiver. The Subordinate Judge directed the receiver to receive the amount and deposit the same in Court, relegating 'all other matters' for determination at the time of disposal of the petition for discharge of the receiver. On 141968 he reviewed his prior order and directed' the judgment-debtor to deposit Rs. 2000/-more, towards future rent, by or before 15 6 1968; but on appeal the District Judge, Palghat, set aside that order and directed discharge of" the receiver. This revision is in challenge of the District Judge's judgment. 3. I am afraid, the scope of the Act IX of 1967 has been misconceived in this case. S.5 of the Act stays "proceedings for the recovery of arrears of rent ...accrued due before the 1st day of April 1965"; and S.7 provides "where any holding has been sold before the commencement of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Ordinance 1967(19 51967) in execution of any decree for arrears of rent, but the tenant has, not been dispossessed, such tenant may, within three months of the commencement of this Act, deposit the decree amount with interest ... and apply to the Court for setting aside the sale." The instant execution sale comes within the scope of S.7; but neither application nor deposit has been made within the time prescribed therein. The S.7 cannot therefore have any effect in this case after three months from the commencement of the Act, which is over by 30101967. 4. Counsel for decree holder-landlord was not certain if this case is not hit by S.5 of the Act, as!the court-sale has not been confirmed so far. The S.7 cannot therefore have any effect in this case after three months from the commencement of the Act, which is over by 30101967. 4. Counsel for decree holder-landlord was not certain if this case is not hit by S.5 of the Act, as!the court-sale has not been confirmed so far. I am afraid, he has not addressed himself whether a decree holder can take any steps to recover or claim the arrears of rent covered by an unconfirmed Court-sale. If he cannot, it is obvious that the proceedings for confirmation of the Court-sale are not "for the recovery of arrears of rent" but are for ascertaining the validity of the Court-sale. It may be said that if the sale is held invalid, proceeding for recovery of the same arrears of rent as was covered by the sale may get revived; but that is different from saying that an enquiry on the validity of the sale under Order XXI R.90 is a proceeding for recovery of arrears of rent. 5. The stay ordered by the Court below under S.5 of the Act IX of 1967 is, insofar as it affects enquiry of the judgment-debtor's application under Order XXI R.90 CPC., ultra vires of the Act and therefore a nullity. The direction to deposit an amount equivalent to the rent of the property for a current period to avoid a receiving order concerning the property sold against the tenant, as ordered by the Court below, is obviously in conservation of the interests of the auction-purchaser under S.65 CPC., and has nothing to do with the lease that was subsisting before the Court-sale in question. After Court-sale of the tenancy, the judgment-debtor is not a tenant and therefore the so-called rent is really the net profits of the property sold. 6. In the circumstances, I set aside the order of the Court below discharging the receiver, and direct the executing Court to proceed with the application under Order XXI R.90 CPC. I leave it to the executing Court to give directions to the receiver as to how he should proceed hereafter concerning the property under the receiving order. Allowed.