Judgment :- 1. We are unable to share the view taken by the courts below in regard to the construction of S.7 of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act 1967 (Act 9 of 1967) and we think that this appeal should be allowed. 2. The decree-holder appellant obtained a decree in O. S. No. 849 of 1959, Munsiff's Court, Trichur, for arrears of rent against the respondents in respect of Sy. No. 755, 738 and 756/2 held by the judgment-debtors as tenants under the decree-holder. These three items were sold in execution of an earlier decree. Thereafter, the decree in O. S. No. 849 of 1959 was put in execution in respect of the three items referred to earlier, and a fourth item Sy. No. 754/4. Items 1 to 3 were deleted in view of their sale in execution of the decree for prior arrears, and the sale proceeded only in respect of Sy. No. 754/4. This was sold and purchased by the decree-holder. The item was held by the judgment-debtors as tenants, not under the appellant, but under a different person. Judgment-debtors applied for cancellation of the sale under S.7 of Act 9 of 1967. That application was allowed by the execution court and the judgment was confirmed on appeal by the appellate court. 3. S.7 of the Act reads: 7. Cancellation of certain sales. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, where any holding has been sold before the commencement of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Ordinance, 1967 (4 of 1967), in execution of any decree for arrears of rent. but the tenant has not been dispossessed, such tenant may, within three months from the commencement of this Act, deposit the decree-amount with interest at the rate of six percent per annum an apply to the court for setting aside the sale. (2) The court shall, if satisfied after such summary enquiry as the court deems fit, set aside the sale and may also order the applicant to deposit the costs, if any, payable to the decree-holder". It is true that the section contemplates sales in execution of "any decree for arrears of rent". It refers also to "any holding" having been sold before the commencement of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Ordinance 1967. It is true that the section contemplates sales in execution of "any decree for arrears of rent". It refers also to "any holding" having been sold before the commencement of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Ordinance 1967. But the latter part of the Section provides that in order to apply under the Section, "the tenant should not have been dispossessed." Such tenant is given a right of applying for cancellation of the sale. The latter part of the Section contains sufficient indication that the 'holding' in respect of which a right to apply for cancellation of sale is given, must be the holding which was the subject-matter of the decree for arrears of rent, and from which "the tenant" bad not been dispossessed. The use of the definite article as qualifying the term "tenant" seems to indicate that the dispossession contemplated was from the property held by the person as tenant under the one against whom relief is sought under the Section. The conclusion seems to be reinforced if we look at the scheme of the Act, as disclosed, for instance, by S.4 and 6. S.4 of the Act, which practically reproduces S.4 of the Ordinance which preceded it, contemplates a stay of eviction of a tenant from his holding. S.6 contemplates restoration of possession. Restoration is again of the tenant who has been dispossessed from bis holding in execution of any decree for arrears of rent. S.7 which is one of those sections in the scheme of the provisions intended to give relief to tenants, provides for cancellation of the sales. In the context, again, it appears to us that the relief of cancellation of sales, was thought of or contemplated, only in respect of sales of holdings, or lands in respect of which the relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted between the person applying for cancellation and the one against whom it Was made. In the instant case, the property sold was not the one in respect of which such relationship subsisted. It was not the property in respect of which the decree for arrears of rent was passed. It was quite a different property, held by the respondents, not as tenants of the appellants, but as tenants under a different person. We think the relief of cancellation was not available with respect to such property. 4. It was not the property in respect of which the decree for arrears of rent was passed. It was quite a different property, held by the respondents, not as tenants of the appellants, but as tenants under a different person. We think the relief of cancellation was not available with respect to such property. 4. We allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the courts below and direct that the application of the respondents, M. P. 1548 of 1967 will stand dismissed. Parties will bear their costs throughout.