This Revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.12. 1987 passed by the learned Asstt. District Judge No.l. Gauhati in Misc. (J) Case No. 114 of 1987 arising out of Title Execution Case No 9 of 1982 rejecting the prayer of the judgment-debtor under Order 46 Rule 1 read with section 113 of the C.P.C. and the application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The opposite parties optained decree for ejectment of the petitioners from the suit premises and recovery of arrear rents in Title Suit No. 70 of 1977 from the Court of Assistant District Judge No 1, Gauhati. The suit premises was the ground floor and first floor of one R.C.C. building consisting of seven rooms including the kitchen, godowns, staircases, collapsable doors, sanitary latrines and other fittings, situated by the southern side of Hem Barua Road, Fancy Bazaar, Gauhati on the land of Dag No. 1180, Periodical Patta No. 893, Municipal Holding No. 62 of Ward No. 19 of Gauhati Municipal Corporation and the arrear rent was Rs. 28,280.00. The boundary of the suit premises was given in the schedule of the plaint. The decree for ejectment and recovery of arrear rent was passed on 24th May, 1982. The petitioners-judgment debtors preferred First Appeal No.49 of 1982 before the High Court and the opposite party-decree holder filed cross-objection. The High Court by its judgment dated 14.5.1987 dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-objection by holding inter alia that the rate of rent was Rs, 14,4000.00 per annum for the suit premises. 3 The decree-holders proceeded with the Title Execution Case No. 9 of 1982 for execution of the decrees of Title Suit No. 70 of 1977 and First Appeal No. 49 of 1982. The judgment debtors filed application under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code challeng­ing executability of the decree on the ground that the suit premises had not been correctly described in the decrees. The judgment debtors claimed that they were tenants in respect of Municipality Holding No.46 and 46(A) and not under Holding No. 62 and as such they are not liable under the decree to vacate the premises. The judgment debtors claimed that they were tenants in respect of Municipality Holding No.46 and 46(A) and not under Holding No. 62 and as such they are not liable under the decree to vacate the premises. By another application under Order 45 Rule 1 read with section 113 of the C.P.C., the judgment debtors made a prayer for a reference to the High Court for decision whether the fair rent of the suit premises should be fixed in Misc. (J) Case No. 102 of 1981 as directed by the High Court vide order dated 29.7.1986 in Misc. Appeal (F) No 103 of 1982 or the rent fixed at Rs. 14,400.00 per annum as decreed by the High Court in F.A. No. 49 of 1982 should be taken as final. 4. During pendency of the suit before the trial Court, the defen­dants- petitioners filed Misc. (J) Case No. 102 of 1981 under section 4 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act for fixing of fair/ standard rent of the suit premises. The matter came up before the High Court in M.A. (F) No. 103 of 1982 wherein vide order dated 29.7.1982 this Court directed the Assistant District Judge (trial Court) to proceed with the fair/standard rent fixation case in accordance with law. The F. A. No. 49 of 1982 was pending before the High Court when the order dated 29.7.1986 was passed in M.A (F) No. 103 of 1982, which was dismissed on 14.5.1957. 5. Mr. S. K. Sen submits that the executing Court ought to have made a reference to the High Court as prayed by the petitioner-judgment debtors because the Court faced two problems, firstly, a direction by the High Court in M.A (F) No. 103 of 1982 10 proceed with the fair rent fixation Case No. Misc. (J) Case No. 102 of 1981 ; and secondly, the rent of the suit premises was fixed at Rs. 14,400.00 per annum by the High Court in F.A. No. 49 of 1982. Mr. Sen further submits that the executing Court is required to be sured if the rent fixation case would proceed or not in view of the judgment in F.A. No. 49 of 1982. Another submission is that if fair rent is fixed as prayed, then there would be no question of becoming defaulters liable for ejectment. Mr. Sen further submits that the executing Court is required to be sured if the rent fixation case would proceed or not in view of the judgment in F.A. No. 49 of 1982. Another submission is that if fair rent is fixed as prayed, then there would be no question of becoming defaulters liable for ejectment. It is also submitted that the petitioners are occupying Municipal Holding No. 46 and 46 (A) and not the Holding No. 62 in respect of which decree was passed and so the decree for ejectment against the petitioners was not executable. 6. Mr. J. N. Sarma for the opposite party-decree holders submit that the relationship of landlord and tenants had ceased as soon as the trial Court decreed Title Suit No. 70 of 1977 and the said decree was affirmed by the High Court in F. A. No. 49 of 1982 wherein the rent of the suit premises was also fixed by the High Court and that no further scope was left to the trial Court to fix fair/standard rent in Misc. (J) Case No. 102 of 1981. It is submitted that a fair/standard rent fixed by the Court is enforceable only form the date of its fixation and that once the Court had decided in a suit in between the landlord and tenants the rate of rent on the basis of contractual rent, and the decision of the suit at the same time ceased the relationship of landlord and tenants by an ejectment decree, question of further fixation of fair rent does not arise, and so, the trial Court was justified not to make any reference to the High Court as claimed by the judgment debtors. It is further submitted that even if the fair rent as claimed is fixed by Court, then also the defendants-petitioners would not be free from becoming a defaulter and that this point had been decided in the judgment of F.A. No. 49 of 1982. With regard to the second point, Mr. It is further submitted that even if the fair rent as claimed is fixed by Court, then also the defendants-petitioners would not be free from becoming a defaulter and that this point had been decided in the judgment of F.A. No. 49 of 1982. With regard to the second point, Mr. Sarma submits that the defendants admitted in the suit that the original Municipal Holding No. 62 had been converted to new Holding No. 46 and 46 (A) which were in their occupation as tenants under the plaintiffs and they deposited rent in respect of the said premises and therefore, there was no mis-description or wrong-description of the suit premises and hence, the decree was executable because the decretal premises can be well identified from the schedule in plaint and decree. 7. The relationship of landlord and tenants in between the parties had ceased with the passing of ejectment decree in Title Suit No. 70 of 1977, which was also affirmed by the High Court in F.A. No 49 of 1982. The High Court had also decided and fixed the rent of the suit holding at Rs. 14,400-00 per annum which was the contractual rent between the parties. The judgment and decree of the F A, No. 49 of 1982 was also affirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissing the petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 7460 of 1987 vide order dated 3rd day of August, 1987. Once the contractual rent in between the parties had been accepted by Court as rent of the suit premises and the decree passed by the Court at that rate of rent and at the same time the relationship of landlord and tenant ceased between the parties, there left no scope for fixation of fair rent for the said premises under the provisions of section 3 and 4 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. 8. The opposite party-plaintiff claimed arrear rent in the suit on the basis of contractual rent at Rs. 14,400-00 per annum for the suit premises. Whereas the defendant denied such contractual rent on the plea that the rent originally was Rs. 2,551-00 per annum; but it was raised from time to time and finally fixed at Rs.6,000-00 per annum from April, 1974. 14,400-00 per annum for the suit premises. Whereas the defendant denied such contractual rent on the plea that the rent originally was Rs. 2,551-00 per annum; but it was raised from time to time and finally fixed at Rs.6,000-00 per annum from April, 1974. Finally it was decided once for all by the High Court in the F.A. No. 49 of l982 that the rate of rent for the suit premises was Rs. 14,400-00 on the basis of written agreement in between the parties since 12.2.1973 (Ext. 7 of the suit) and decreed the claim for recovery of arrear rent at that rate. This portion of the decree was also affirmed by the Supreme Court on dismissal of the Special Leave Appeal (Civil) No. 7460 of 1987 on 3rd day of August, 1987. 9. It is the settled principle of law that so long the fair rent is not fixed under the provision of the concerned law by the Court /authority, the rent allowable will be the rent agreed upon between the parties. Fixation of fair rent will be effective only from the date of determination of the same by the first Court/authority on an appropriate proceeding and will operate prospectively only. (See A. 1. R. 1964 Assam 102, 1959 I. L. R. (Assam) 125, 1969 R. C. J. 913) Once the Court passes decree for recovery of rent on the basis of agreed rent and at the same time, the tenancy along with the relationship of landlord and tenant terminate/cease by that decree, the scope for fixing fair rent becomes nil. This being the position of law, there must exist some conditions on the date of fixation of fair rent by the Court, namely (1) relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of the premises must exist ; (2) that rent for the said premises had not been fixed by a decree of competent Court on the basis of verbal or written agreement in between the parties with cessation of tenancy. The condition under section 3 (1) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 restricting the land lord in respect of rate of rent will be enforceable only when the above conditions are alive on the date of determination of fair rent. The condition under section 3 (1) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 restricting the land lord in respect of rate of rent will be enforceable only when the above conditions are alive on the date of determination of fair rent. In the instant case those conditions were not alive because of the suit by ejectaient and rent fixation decrees, so, executing Court had no scope to make a reference to the High Court for a decision whether the rent fixation case is required to be continued and decided. The pending rent fixation case will have to be closed as infractuous because the order of this Court in M. A. (F.) No. 103 of 1982 for produce any legally enforceable result. 10. The legal situations created by the finality of the ejectment and arrear rent recover decrees in T. S. No. 70 of 1977, there would be no conflict between the decisions in the suit with that of the order in M. A (F) No. 103 of 1982. 11. Mr. Sen submitted that the petitioners-defendants would not have been defaulters if fair/standard rent was fixed before the decrees passed in the suit. There is no force in the submission. This point was also dealt in paras 16 and 17 of the judgment by the High Court in F. A. No. 49 of 1982 and held that even assuming the rent payable was at Rs. 500/- per month, which was claimed to be the fair rent, the defendants were not free from becoming defaulter because they became defaulters for non compliance of the provisions of section 5 (4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. 12. Full description of the premises in which the defendants-petitioners were tenants under the plaintiffs had been given in the schedule of the plaint of the suit. The Holding No. 62 and the boundary of the premises was given. There was no dispute as to the descriptions and boundary of the suit premises (tenanted house) in the written statement. The defendants admitted by their written statement (Para 26) in the suit that they took rent of the building covered by Municipal Holding No. 62 (Old), 46 and 46 (A) (New). There was no dispute as to the descriptions and boundary of the suit premises (tenanted house) in the written statement. The defendants admitted by their written statement (Para 26) in the suit that they took rent of the building covered by Municipal Holding No. 62 (Old), 46 and 46 (A) (New). So it was admitted that they were tenants in respect of the Holding No, 62 at the inception of the tenancy and according to them that Holding No. 62 became New No. 46 and 46 (A), Ward No. XIX (New). The defendants deposited rent of the premises vide exhibit 11 in the Court wherein they described the tenancy as Holding No, 62. The certificate issued by the Gauhati Municipal Corporation (Annexure -I) dated 7th September, 1987 disclosed that the Holding No. 62 (Old) at Hem Barua Road under Ward No. 19 previously stood in the name of Bhabani Sankar Thakur, and at the general assessment time the said Holding renumbered as Holding No. 46 and 46 (A) in the name of Sri Jadunandan Sharma. This confirms the statement of the defendants in their written statement, para 26 that the old Holding No. 62 had been renumbered as Holding No. 46 and 46 (A) (New) of Ward No. 19. Thus there should be no confusion or difficulty for identification of the suit premises for execution of the decree. Change of Holding number of the suit premises does not make the decree unexecutable. The decree is executable as it stands. 13. The impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity and the Assistant District Judge (Executing Court) committed no error. The orders require no interference under the provision of section 115 of the CPC. 14. This Revision is dismissed. Execution shall proceed. The Officer of the Court (Nazir), at the time of execution, will take the help of the Officer of the Gauhati Municipal Corporation and the decree holder for identification of the decretal premises/suit premises. 15. The stay order in respect of the proceedings of Title Execution Case No. 9 of 1982 passed by this Court on 8.12.1987 in Misc. Case No. 529 of 1987 arising out of this Civil Revision is hereby vacated. 16. Send down the records immediately.