Judgment :- The sixth defendant in O.S. No. 58 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Pudukottai who succeeded before the trial court, but lost before the first appellate court is the appellant before this court. The suit was instituted for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. Admittedly, the suit land which belongs to the plaintiffs was leased out in public auction under the provisions of the Madras Land Utilisation Order, 1957, for a period of five years. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for recovery of possession after the expiry of the said period of five years. The appellant contended that she is entitled to remain in possession in the land since she is entitled to the protection of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. The question for consideration is whether she is entitled to such possession and on this question, the courts below have differed, the learned District Munsif holding that she was entitled to such protection and the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal holding that she is not entitled to such a protection. I am clearly of the opinion that the contention of the learned Subordinate Judge is correct. In the first place, a person who becomes an auction purchaser in terms of the Madras Land Utilisation Order, 1957, cannot come within the definition of ‘cultivating tenant’ as provided in the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, since it cannot be held that such an auction purchaser is in cultivation of the land under a tenancy agreement, express or implied with the landlord. Secondly, the Madras Land Utilisation Order, 1957, came into existence subsequent to Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 and if the intention of that order was to make the provisions of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act applicable to an auction purchaser, the order would have said so. On the other hand, if it is held that the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act is applicable to such an auction purchaser, then clause 3(f) of the Madras Land Utilisation Order, 1957, will be rendered nugatory. On the other hand, if it is held that the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act is applicable to such an auction purchaser, then clause 3(f) of the Madras Land Utilisation Order, 1957, will be rendered nugatory. Clause 3(f) states— “The auction-purchaser shall have no right whatever after the expiry of the period specified under sub-clause (d) and the Collector or any person authorised by him shall be entitled to take actual possession of the land and summarily eject the auction purchaser if be continues in possession after that period. In the presence of this clause of the Madras Land Utilisation Order, 1957, it is impossible to contend that an auction purchaser under that Order is entitled to the protection of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. There is a third reason for holding that the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act does not apply to an auction purchaser under the Madras Lard Utilisation Order, 1957. A reading of clause 3, sub-clause (a) and other sub-clauses of clause 3 makes it clear that the land so leased out by public auction may be already in possession of either the holder of the land or a tenant or lessee. If there is already a tenant of the land which is being leased out in public auction, it cannot be contended that the purchaser in public auction becomes a cultivating tenant entitled to the protection of Madras Act 25 of 1955 while the original tenant of the land will continue to be deprived of his possession of the land. The Order makes it clear that the cultivation and possession of the land by an auction purchaser is purely a temporary one for the period fixed therein. Therefore, the entire scheme of Madras Land Utilisation Order, 1957, makes it clear that the auction purchaser under that Order is not a cultivating tenant as contemplated by Madras Act 25 of 1955 and, therefore he is not entitled to the benefits of or the protection under that Act. In view of this, the conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge is correct and the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. No leave.