JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a second appeal arising out of a proceeding under the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. While a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was pending against the appellant-tenant, he made an application before the Rent Controlling Authority for fixing standard rent. The Rent controlling Authority fixed rent under section 7 of the Act at Rs. 5-40 P. per month. Against that order, there was an appeal before the Additional district Judge, who came to the conclusion that the provisions of section 7 were inapplicable to the case and it was really governed by section 10 (4) of the Act, but the tenant had not supplied any evidence on the basis of which rent could be fixed under section 10 (4) of the Act. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and dismissed the tenants application for fixation of standard rent. Against that order, the present second appeal has been filed. ( 2. ) LEARNED counsel, appearing for the respondent, has contended that in the meanwhile the civil Court has already passed a decree for arrears of rent and ejectment against the tenant; that the defendant has also been ejected from the suit accommodation and that the decree for arrears of rent has already been realised. His contention, therefore, is that the proceedings for fixation of standard rent have become infructuous. ( 3. ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the proceedings cannot be said to have become infructuous because the decree which had been passed against the appellant was on the basis of agreed rent and if the standard rent is now fixed, he will be liable to pay only the standard rent for that period for which the decree has been passed and consequently these proceedings should continue to a logical conclusion. ( 4. ) AFTER hearing both the parties, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that these proceedings have become infructuous. Under the definition of "tenant" contained in section 2 (1) of the act, a person against whom a decree for ejectment has been passed is not a tenant and consequently the present applicant is no more a tenant since a decree was passed against him for ejectment. The proceedings for fixation of rent can be continued only at the instance of the tenant. The proceedings for fixation of rent can be continued only at the instance of the tenant. After passing of the decree, he being no more a tenant, he cannot continue these proceedings. ( 5. ) I also do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that he will be able to get a refund from the decree-holder of the amount paid in excess in execution of the decree, if standard rent is fixed in these proceedings. The civil Courts decree is not subject to any proceedings for fixation of rent under the Act. When a decree is passed for arrears of rent, the original cause of action is merged in the decree and the decree can only be challenged in an appeal or other proper proceedings. Mere fixation of lesser rent by the Rent Controlling Authority cannot have the automatic effect of reducing the amount of the decree or amending the amount decreed. Any fixation of rent in these proceedings would, therefore, be infructuous so far as the appellant is concerned. ( 6. ) I, therefore, see no force in this appeal and dismiss the same as infructuous. Parties will bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.