Judgment :- 1. One Samsudheen alias Kuttimusaliar was a verumpattom tenant under one Anantharama Deekshithar. In execution of a decree obtained by the said landlord for sale of the holding for arrears of rent due by Samsudheen the rights of the said tenant were brought to sale in court auction and were purchased by the decree holder on 30 31964. Pursuant thereto the property was taken delivery of in execution by the decree-holder and the tenant Samsudheen was thereby dispossessed from the holding in August 1964. After the coming into force of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1967 (Act 9 of 1967) which contained a provision entitling the erstwhile tenants, who had been dispossessed from their holdings after 1-4-1964 and before the commencement of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Ordinance, 1967 by reason of the holding having been sold in execution of any decree for arrears of rent, to restoration of possession, Samsudheen along with his son Abdul Majeed, who is the revision petitioner in both these civil revision petitions, filed E.A. No. 1505 of 1967 in the Munsiff 's Court, Palghat seeking relief under the aforesaid section. The son Abdul Majeed had joined in the application as the 2nd petitioner on the ground that the father had transferred all his rights in his favour for valuable consideration and there was a prayer in the application by Samsudheen that in granting the relief that he was entitled to under S.6 of Act 9 of 196; the court may be pleased to direct the property to be delivered over to the 2nd petitioner namely, Abdul Majeed. 2. The above application appears to have been pending in the Munsiff's Court for quite a long time and in the interregnum Act 35 of 1969 also came into force whereby S.13B was newly introduced into the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) conferring a right on tenants who had been dispossessed of their holdings after 1st April, 1964 and before the commencement of the said Act by reason of the holdings have bean sold in execution of any decree for arrears of rent to be restored to the possession of the holdings on the basis that the sale stand automatically set aside, provided that the persons so entitled to restoration complies with the requirements specified in sub-section (2) thereof. On the coming into force of the said section by its introduction into the Act 1 of 1964 by Act 35 of 1969 a fresh application praying for the relief of restoration of the holding under the said section was filed before the lower court by Abdul Majeed the revision petitioner as EA. No. 623 of 1970, the father Samsudheen having died by that time. The court below by a common order dated the 27th November, 1972 dismissed both the above applications. The main reason stated by the learned Munsiff for dismissing E.A. No. 1505 of 1967 is that the junction of the son Abdul Majeed as a co-petitioner in that application is an incurable defect because he is not the tenant who was dispossessed from the holding but only an assignee of the said tenant who, according to the learned Munsiff, is not entitled to claim the benefit of S.6 of Act 9 of 1967. The further step in the reasoning of the lower court is that since the 1st petitioner had, while mentioning the reason for the junction of the 2nd petitioner, clearly submitted to the court that he had assigned away his right in favour of the 2nd petitioner the 1st petitioner had also ceased to have any locus standi to claim relief under S.6 and that the resultant position was that neither of the petitioners had the requisite competence to maintain the application. Another ground mentioned by the Munsiff for dismissing E. A. No. 1506 of 1967 is that though the petitioners have deposited the full amount required to be remitted under S.6 the said deposit had not been made unconditionally and it could not, therefore, be regarded as a valid compliance with the requirements of S.6. 3. Another ground mentioned by the Munsiff for dismissing E. A. No. 1506 of 1967 is that though the petitioners have deposited the full amount required to be remitted under S.6 the said deposit had not been made unconditionally and it could not, therefore, be regarded as a valid compliance with the requirements of S.6. 3. As regards E. A. No. 623 of 1970 the Munsiff held that though the petitioner therein is a legal representative of the tenant Samsudheen who had been dispossessed from the holding, the right conferred under S.13B of Act 35 of 1969 can be availed of by any tenant who was actually dispossessed from the holding and will not be available to his legal representatives or his assignees Another reason mentioned by the learned Munsiff for rejecting E. A. No. 623 of 1970 is that there is no specific averments contained in the petition expressing the petitioner's readiness to deposit any amount that may be called upon by court to be deposited by him by way of costs. 4. CRP No 218 of 1973 has been filed against the order in E. A. No. 1505 of 1967 and CRP. No. 219 of 1973 against the order in E.A. No. 623 of 1970, the petitioner in both the petitions being Abdul Majeed, son of Samsudheen who was the tenant from whose possession the holding was delivered over to the decree-holder. The respondents in both the cases are the two sons of the landlord Anantharama Deekshithar who is also now dead. 5. It is unnecessary for me to consider the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the court below in the application E. A. No 1505 of 1967 because after hearing both sides I have come to the conclusion that the revision petitioner is entitled to succeed in his contention that the lower court has acted illegally in rejecting E.A. No. 623 of 1970 filed by him under Act 35 of 1969. 6. 6. It is not in dispute that the tenant Samsudheen had been dispossessed from the holding after the 1st day of April, 1964 and before the commencement of Act 35 of 1969 in execution of a decree for sale of the holding obtained by the landlord in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent S.13B is then clearly attracted to the case and the sale shall stand set aside and the 'tenant is entitled to restoration of possession provided he complies with the conditions mentioned in sub-s. (2) of the said section. The definition of expression tenant contained in S.2(57) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act was amended by Act 35 of 1969 by including within its scope an heir, assignee or legal representative of the person who was the original tenant. It is with reference to this definition that the provision contained in S.13B has to be construed and when that is done I see no scope at all for any doubt regarding the competence of a legal representative of a deceased tenant, who had been dispossessed from the holding during the period mentioned in S.13B in execution of a decree for sale of he holding for arrears of rent, to claim the benefit of restoration conferred by he said section. The revision petitioner is the son of Samsudheen and his status as legal representative of Samsudheen had been recognised and declared by this court in an earlier application between the same parties which was brought up to this court in S. A. No. 55 of 1966. In these circumstances whether as legal representative or even as an assignee of deceased Samsudheen the petitioner was clearly entitled to maintain the application for relief under S.13B as amended by Act 35 of 1969. The opinion expressed by the lower court that the benefit conferred under S.13p can be availed of only by the particular tenant who had been dispossessed as a personal right belonging to him only, is not warranted by the language used in the Act, particularly in the light of the amended definition of the expression'tenant'. 7. The opinion expressed by the lower court that the benefit conferred under S.13p can be availed of only by the particular tenant who had been dispossessed as a personal right belonging to him only, is not warranted by the language used in the Act, particularly in the light of the amended definition of the expression'tenant'. 7. I find no merit at all in the second objection raised by the court below that the petitioner has failed to comply with the requirements of S.13B(2) by reason of his omission to incorporate a specific averment in his petition expressing his readiness to comply with any order for deposit of costs as and when any such order is passed by the court. There is no requirement at all in any of the clauses of S.13B that such an offer of readiness must be expressed or incorporated in the petition for restoration filed by the tenant under the said section. 8. It is not denied by the respondents that the correct amount which is due to be deposited by the tenant under sub-s. (2) of S.13 B has been deposited by the revision petitioner along with E. A. No 623 of 1970. In the circumstances the lower court was clearly in error in dismissing E. A. No. 623 of 1970 and denying to the petitioner the relief under S.13 B9. Hence, in reversal of the order passed by the lower court, E. A. No. 623 of 1970 will stand allowed and there will be an order for restoration of the holding to the petitioner in accordance with S.13B of Act 35 of 1969 as prayed for by him in the said application. CRP. No. 219 of 1973 is thus allowed. The petitioner will get his costs of this revision petition from the respondents. 9. In view of CRP. No. 219 of 1973 having been allowed it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that It is unnecessary for him to press the contentions raised by him in CRP. No. 218 of 1973. In the light of this submission CRP. No. 218 of 1973 is dismissed without any order as to costs.