RAM CHAND Vs. RAM SWARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted in the Court of a Munsif to evict the appellant from an accommodation, occupied by him in the town of Baldeo as a tenant of the plffs.-respondents. It is not necessary to recapitulate the pleas raised in defence. It is sufficient to state that the Munsif overruled all of them & decreed the suit. The U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act, III (3) of 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', was extended to the town of Baldeo during the pendency of the appeal by the deft, against the decree of the Munsif in the lower appellate Court. This enabled the deft, appellant to set up, in the lower appellate Court, an additional plea based on Section 15 of the Act which reads :

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that this view of the lower appellate Court is erroneous & relies upon 'Niranjan Lal v. Mt. Ram Kali', AIR (37) 1950, All 396, in support of his contention. He submits that the section has not been correctly construed in 'Northern India Coal Co's.', case & that even if I do not accept this submission, I am bound to follow 'Niranjan Larv. Mt. Ram Kali Devi.'

(3.) 'Niranjan Lal's' case is a direct authority in support of the proposition that 'suit' in Section 15 of the Act refers to a suit while it is before the Court of first instance as well as while it is before the appellate Court & that a tenant is entitled to claim the benefit of that section in an appeal pending on the date when the Act came into force. It is unfortunate that the aforesaid single Judge decision was not brought to our notice when we decided 'Niranjan Lal v. Mt. Ram Kali Devi', although it had been published before then. Nevertheless it is not possible to hold that its authority has not been overruled by the decision of a Bench in 'Niranjan Lal Bhargava's', case. I am, therefore bound to follow the construction approyed in 'Niranjan Lal's case & to reject the construction approved in 'Northern India Coal Company's case. Notwithstanding this, the desire to ascertain whether anything said in that case would have induced us to hold otherwise, has led me to examine critically the reasoning upon which my learned brother Mushtaq Ahmad has based his conclusion.