Judgment : 1. This civil revision petition has been filed by the tenant as revision petitioner, against the order and decretal order dated 30.12.1996 and made in E.A.No.314 of 1996 in O.S.No.459 of 1975 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram. .2. The facts that are necessary for disposal of this civil revision petition are as follows: The respondent herein, who is the landlord/plaintiff before the trial court in O.S.No.459 of 1975 filed the suit for ejectment of the revision petitioner herein/ tenant/defendant from the premises described in the plaint. The revision petitioner as defendant filed a petition under Sec.9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in I.A.No.1467 of 1975 to sell the suit vacant site to the revision petitioner for the price to be fixed by the court. Against the order of dismissal of the abovesaid petition, an appeal in C.M.A.No.43 of 1977 was filed before the appellate court and the appeal was allowed thereby remanding the matter back to the trial court with a direction to fix the market value of the land and to comply with Sec.9 of the Act. The market value of the land was fixed by the trial court at Rs.300 percent and a direction was given for deposit of the said amount. The respondent herein, aggrieved at the order passed by the trial court, preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.9 of 1985 and the said appeal was also allowed to redetermine the value of the suit property. The revision filed by the revision petitioner herein as the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.828 of 1990 was decided with direction to fix the market value at Rs.500 per cent. Certain mistakes crept in the order of civil revision petition and the same was rectified by this Court by order dated 210. 1992. The balance amount to be deposited by the revision petitioner herein was also deposited as per the direction of the High Court of Judicature, Madras. It is thereafter the revision petitioner herein has filed a petition in E.P.No.306 of 1993 on 3. 1993 for a direction to the respondent herein to execute the sale deed with regard to the suit vacant site described in the plaint and on failure to execute the sale deed, requested the court to execute the sale deed on behalf of the respondent herein. 1993 for a direction to the respondent herein to execute the sale deed with regard to the suit vacant site described in the plaint and on failure to execute the sale deed, requested the court to execute the sale deed on behalf of the respondent herein. During the pendency of this execution proceeding, Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Tamil Nadu Act No.2 of 1996) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the amended Act’) has come into force on 11. 1996. As per the provisions of the said amended Act, certain pending proceedings will abate and the said Act will not invalidate any suit or proceeding in which a decree or order passed has been executed or satisfied in full before the said date as per the Proviso to Sec.3 of the said amended Act. In view of the abovesaid circumstances, the respondent herein filed a petition in E.A.No.314 of 1996 in E.P.No.306 of 1993 in O.S.No.459 of 1975 to declare the proceeding initiated by the revision petitioner herein and pending in E.P.No.306 of 1993 as abated in view of the amended Act 2 of 1996. 3. The revision petitioner as respondent in the abovesaid execution application resisted the claim made by the respondent herein, who is the petitioner in E.A.No.314 of 1996 on the ground that the amended Act 2 of 1996 will have no application to the pending execution proceedings and therefore, the sale deed has to be executed as prayed for in the execution proceedings. 4. After considering the submissions made on either side, the learned Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram has come to the conclusion that the proceeding is deemed to be pending at the stage of execution while the amended Act 2 of 1996 had come into force on 11. 1996, that the decree or order obtained by the revision petitioner under Sec.9 of the Act has not been executed or satisfied in full before the date on which the amended Act 2 of 1996 had come into force and therefore, the proceeding pending at the stage of execution shall abate. Accordingly the execution petition was closed. Aggrieved at the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram on 30.12.1996 in E.A.No.314 of 1996 in E.P.No.306 of 1993 in O.S.No.459 of 1975, the respondent in the abovesaid execution application as revision petitioner has come forward with this revision petition. .5. Accordingly the execution petition was closed. Aggrieved at the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram on 30.12.1996 in E.A.No.314 of 1996 in E.P.No.306 of 1993 in O.S.No.459 of 1975, the respondent in the abovesaid execution application as revision petitioner has come forward with this revision petition. .5. The fact remains that the property described in the plaint schedule in O.S.No.459 of 1975 belongs to Sri Nagareeswarar Devasthanam at Kancheepuram. Admittedly the revision petitioner is in possession of about 70 cents of vacant site owned by the abovesaid Devasthanam, as a tenant, for the rent agreed between the parties. The revision petitioner is said to have put up superstructure in the said vacant site. The Devasthanam as plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.459 of 1975 for ejectment of the revision petitioner herein from the said premises and the revision petitioner herein filed a petition under Sec.9 of the Act to sell the said vacant site to him for the value to be determined by the court. There was spate of proceedings between both the parties from the trial court to the High Court and finally the value of the vacant site was fixed at R.500 per cent. Admittedly, the amount fixed as value by the court has been deposited before the trial court and the said amount was not withdrawn by the respondent Devasthanam and had also not executed the sale deed with regard to the demised property in favour of the revision petitioner. The fact also remains that the revision petitioner has filed the execution petition in E.P.No.306 of 1993 on 3. 1993 on the file of the trial court praying for a direction to the Devasthanam-respondent herein to execute the sale deed in favour of the revision petitioner for the suit vacant site and in the event of refusal, praying execution of the sale deed by the court on behalf of Devasthanam. It is during the pendency of the said execution proceedings, amended Act 2 of 1996 had come into force on 11. 1996. 6. It is during the pendency of the said execution proceedings, amended Act 2 of 1996 had come into force on 11. 1996. 6. A perusal of Sec.3 of the abovesaid amended Act would reveal that every proceeding instituted by a tenant in respect of any land owned by any religious institution or religious charity belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religion and pending before any court or other authority or officer on the date of the publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, shall, in so far as the proceeding relates to any matter falling within the scope of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, in respect of such land, abate, and all rights and privileges which may have accrued to the tenant in respect of any such land and subsisting immediately before the said date shall, in so far as such rights and privileges, relate to any matter falling within the scope of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, do cease and determine and shall not be enforceable. The Proviso to the abovesaid section would also reveal that nothing contained in the section shall be deemed to invalidate any suit or proceeding in which a decree or order passed has been executed or satisfied in full before the said date. It is evident from the perusal of the amended Act 2 of 1996, the rights and privileges accrued to the tenant before coming into force of the said amended Act will cease and determine on the date of the coming into force of the said Act namely, 11. 1996. It is also evident from the provisions of the abovesaid amended Act that the abovesaid Act will have no application if the decree is executed or satisfied in full. .7. The question that has to be considered in this revision is whether the proceeding in this matter was pending on 11. 1996 or the decree was executed or satisfied in full. The fact remains a decree has been obtained by the revision petitioner herein for sale of the property described in the plaint for the price fixed by the court, by filing a petition under Sec.9 of the Act and the revision petitioner has also deposited the amount in court, which remains not withdrawn by the Devasthanam yet. The fact remains a decree has been obtained by the revision petitioner herein for sale of the property described in the plaint for the price fixed by the court, by filing a petition under Sec.9 of the Act and the revision petitioner has also deposited the amount in court, which remains not withdrawn by the Devasthanam yet. It is because of the non-execution of the sale deed as per the decree passed by the court by withdrawing the amount deposited in court, the revision petitioner has come forward with this petition in E.P.No.306 of 1993 for a direction to the Devasthanam, the respondent herein to execute the sale deed in favour of the revision petitioner or in the alternative for execution of the sale deed by the court on behalf of the respondent herein. That would show that the purpose for which the petition filed under Sec.9 of the Act by the revision petitioner, has not been completed in spite of the fact of deposit of the amount as ordered by the court and execution proceeding was initiated to realise the fruit of the decree already passed in his favour. Unless the sale deed is executed by the Devasthanam in favour of the revision petitioner herein or in the alternative by the court on behalf of the Devasthanam, the fruit of the decree cannot be realised by the revision petitioner. The proceeding will come to an end immediately on execution of sale deed either by the Devasthanam or by the court on behalf of the Devasthanam in this matter. Since that stage has not been reached and since the execution proceeding for achieving such object is still pending before competent court, this Court is not able to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the proceeding is not pending before the court and it has already come to a finality. Proviso to Sec.3 of the amended Act makes it very clear that the amended Act will have application only if the decree or order passed by the competent court has not been executed or not satisfied in full. In this case, the decree has not been executed by means of execution of a sale deed by the Devasthanam in favour of the revision petitioner or the decree has also not been fully satisfied. In this case, the decree has not been executed by means of execution of a sale deed by the Devasthanam in favour of the revision petitioner or the decree has also not been fully satisfied. A conjoint reading of Sec.3 read with Proviso to the abovesaid Section would go to show that this Act will have application to the pending proceeding in this matter, in view of the pendency of execution proceeding and in view of the fact that the decree has not been executed or satisfied in full. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that where there are two constructions, one of which will do great and unnecessary injustice, and the other of which will avoid that injustice, and will keep exactly within the purpose for which the statute was passed, it is the bounden duty of the court to adopt the second and not to adopt the first of those constructions. A mere and careful reading of the section and Proviso would not reveal that there are two constructions as argued by the learned counsel and therefore, such contention cannot be accepted. 9. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that execution is a process in action to carry into effect the directions in a decree or judgment cannot be disputed, and is agreeable. But it will not help the revision petitioner in any respect in this matter. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court a decision in Kush Saigal and others v. M.C.Mitter and others Kush Saigal and others v. M.C.Mitter and others Kush Saigal and others v. M.C.Mitter and others, (2000)4 S.C.C. 526 wherein it was held that main provision should be so construed as to make the exception carved out by the Proviso necessary instead of rendering it redundant. In this case, the main provision itself will show that the said amended Act will have application to the proceeding pending and the Proviso to that section would reveal as to when the amended Act will not invalidate any suit or proceeding in which a decree was passed. A conjoint reading of main provision and the Proviso will clearly go to establish about the application of the amended Act in this matter and therefore, the case law cited supra will have no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. .10. A conjoint reading of main provision and the Proviso will clearly go to establish about the application of the amended Act in this matter and therefore, the case law cited supra will have no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. .10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the decision in Union of India v. B.S.Agarwal Union of India v. B.S.Agarwal Union of India v. B.S.Agarwal, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 1537 and would contend that the court should lean in favour of interpretation of statute which conforms to justice and fair play and prevents potentiality to injustice by liberally construing the provision without intrinsically violating the language of the statute and the purpose intended to be achieved. The amended Act was brought into force with an intention to protect the lands owned by religious institution or religious charity belonging to Hindu, Muslims, Christians and other religious and the said amended provision remains in force without facing any test from any angle. The amended Act is clearly worded and there is no question of interpreting any word in the main provision or Proviso to the amended Act. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relying on the above decision will not also advance the case of the revision petitioner to any extent. For the same principle, learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the decision reported in State of Bihar and another v. Bal Mukund Sah and others State of Bihar and another v. Bal Mukund Sah and others State of Bihar and another v. Bal Mukund Sah and others , (2000)4 S.C.C. 640 . In view of the reasons stated supra, this decision will not also help the revision petitioner to any extent to hold that this amended Act will have no application to the proceeding pending before the court. 11. In view of the reasons stated supra, this Court finds no warranting circumstances to interfere with the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram on 30.12.1996 in E.A.No.314 of 1996 in E.P.No.306 of 1993 in O.S.No.459 of 1975. Accordingly, the order and decretal order passed by the court below in E.A.No.314 of 1996 in O.S.No.459 of 1975 is confirmed. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.