GOVINDA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a landlord and the 1st respondent is his tenant. The petitioner instituted proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1948, before the Tahsildar, Raibag for eviction of his tenant on the ground of three defaults in paying rents for the years 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56. By his order dt. 23-12-1957, the Tahsildar held that the tenant had committed three defaults and consequently ordered his eviction. The tenant's appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi having been dismissed, he preferred a revision petition before the Mysore revenue Appellate Tribunal, who allowed the revision peition and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred CP. No. 447 of 1958 before this Court and this Court by its order dt. 14-9-1961, allowed the said petition and restored the order of eviction passed by the Tahsildar as confirmed by the Assistant commissioner. ( 2 ) BEFORE the petitioner had executed the said order of eviction and obtained delivery of possession, the State of Mysore passed the Mysore tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961, which came into force on 31-12-1961. In view of the said Act, the petitioner was barred from executing the order of eviction obtained by him. ( 3 ) ON 2-10-1965, the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961, hereinafter called the Act' came into force. By S. 142 of the said Act, the Bombav Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948 as also the Mysore Tenants (Temporary protection from Eviction) Act, 1961 were all repealed. ( 4 ) AFTER the Act came into force, the petitioner anplied for delivery to the Tahsildar of Raibag who bv his order dt. 31-3-1967 directed delivery of possession of the lands from the tenant. The tenant preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner who dismissed the same by order dt. 10-10-1967. Against the said order the tenant preferred a revision petition before the Mvsore Revenue Appellate Tribunal in RVN. 262/67 blr. The Tribunal was of the view that the combined effect of Ss. 22 and 142a of the Act is that all procepdings for eviction of tenants which were pending when the Mysore Land Reforms Act came into force, are dead and gone and that the landlord's only remedv is to institute fresh proceedings for eviction under S. 22 of the Act. 22 and 142a of the Act is that all procepdings for eviction of tenants which were pending when the Mysore Land Reforms Act came into force, are dead and gone and that the landlord's only remedv is to institute fresh proceedings for eviction under S. 22 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has preferred the above writ petition. ( 5 ) SRI M. Balachandran, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal that pending proceeding's for eviction on the ground of default in paving rent are dead and gone, is clearlv erroneous in law and what the Tribunal ought to have done was to remit the matter to the Tahsildar under sub-sec. (2) of S. 23 of the Act. Sri K. T. Bhatta, learned Counsel for the 1st resnondent-tenant contended thatf the order of evidtion having become final by an order of this Court, it is not a proceeding pending on the appointed day as contemplated under sub-sec. (2) of S. 23 and therefore the view taken by the Tribunal was right in Akubai v. Appaji Krishnaji Kulkarni, CA. 618/65 SC. the Supreme Court has held that in all proceedings pending for eviction on the ground of default in paying rent under the repealed enactments, the proceedings, should be remanded to the concerned Tahsildar with a direction to determine under s. 23 (2) the amount of rent due and the costs of the proceedings and to fix such time as he thinks might properly be given to the tenant to pay the amount of rent and costs. ( 6 ) SRI K. I. Bhatta sought to distinguish the facts of the present case from the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and the decisions of this court on the ground that in the instant case, the order of eviction having been finally confirmed by this Court, there was a final judgment given in the action and what remained on the appointed day was merely execution of the order of eviction and that being so, this is not a proceeding pending on the appointed day for eviction of a tenant on the ground of default in paying rent. ( 7 ) THE question, is, whether where an order for eviction of a tenant on the ground of default in paying rent under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1948 remains unexecuted on the appointed day when the Act came into force, it is a proceeding pending on the appointed day within the meaning of the expression found in sub-sec. (2) of Section 23 of the Act, sub-section (2) of Section 23 reads thus:" 23. Evictibn not to be ordered if rent paid during pendency of proceedings. (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment or provision of law repealed by S. 142 or in any other law, in any proceedings pending on the appointed day or instituted on or after that day in pursuance of any such repealed enactment or law before any court, officer or authority for eviction of a tenant on the ground of default in paying rent, such Court, officer or authority shall not order eviction of the tenant, if the tenant pays to the landlord the arrears of rent together with the costs of the proceedings as decided by such court, officer or authority within such period as such Court, officer or authority may fix. " ( 8 ) IN State v. Cooper, LR. 16 Ch. D. 544. JT the learned Master of the Rolls has stated, until the final judgment has been satisfied, the proceedings in the action can be said to be pending. This is what Jessel, M. R. has said:" A cause is still pending even though there has been final judgment given, and the Court has very large powers in dealing with a judgment until it is fully satisfied. It may stay proceedings on the judgment, either wholly or partially, and the cause is still pending, therefore, for this purpose, as it appears to me, and must be considered as pending although there may have been final judgment given in the action, provided that judgment has not been satisfied. " (the underlining (italics) is ours ). ( 9 ) THE same is the view taken by this Court in Channabasavaradhya v. Rangammd, 1964 Mys. L. J. Supp. 102, 104. . In the said case, question arose under S. 15 of the Mysore civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1955. " (the underlining (italics) is ours ). ( 9 ) THE same is the view taken by this Court in Channabasavaradhya v. Rangammd, 1964 Mys. L. J. Supp. 102, 104. . In the said case, question arose under S. 15 of the Mysore civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1955. It was held that for the purpose of s. 15 of the said Act a suit must be considered to be pending proceeding and the execution application was a continuation of the sulit. ( 10 ) IN our judgment, the contention of Sri K. I. Bhatta is clearly untenable. We are of the view that although there may have been a final judgment given in the proceedings for eviction, the proceedings are still pendings so long as that judgment has not been satisfied by delivery of possession. ( 11 ) THEREFORE the decision of the Supreme Court above cited clearly governs the instant case also. Accordingly, we allow this writ petition, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the proceedings for eviction filed by the petitioner to the Tahsildar, Raibag with a direction to proceed under S. 23 (2) of the Act. The petitioner is entitled to his costs from the 1st respondent. Advocate's fee Rs. 50. --- *** --- .