SURENDRA NATH Vs. MANIK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal. It is admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the house and the defendant is his tenant. On 22-9-1945, the plaintiff filed a suit No. 282 of 1945 in the court of the munsif Havali, Lucknow, for the ejectment of the defendant. The parties entered into a compromise and a decree in terms of the compromise was passed on 31-12-1945. The decree provided that the defendant had agreed to vacate the house on 1-8-1946. The defendant, however, did not vacate the premises and the plaintiff filed an application for execution. The defendant thereupon filed an objection under Section 7, U. P. Ordinance No. 111 of 1946, which had come into force on 1-8-1946, that he could not be ejected from the premises except in accordance with the provisions of that section. Section 7 provided that no decree for the eviction of a tenant from any accommodation passed before the commencement of the Ordinance shall in so far as it relates to the eviction of such tenant be executed against him as long as the Ordinance remained in force except on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 3 provided that the tenant agreed to pay to the landlord reasonable annual rent or the rent payable by him before the passing of the decree, whichever was higher. On 8-2-1947, the objection was allowed and the execution case was dismissed.

(2.) ON 7-11-1950, the plaintiff obtained from the District Magistrate permission under Section 3, u. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U. P. Act III of 1947), which had replaced the Ordinance, to file a suit for the ejectment of the tenant and filed suit No. 3 of 1951, after having given the defendant notice to quit. The suit failed as the notice to quit was held to be invalid as it did not end with the date of termination of the tenancy. A third suit, Suit No. 161 /174 of 1952, was then filed after a fresh notice and it was decreed by the trial court. The lower appellate court allowed the defendant's appeal and dismissed the suit on the ground that a suit for ejectment of the defendant did not lie and the plaintiff's only course was now to wait as long as the Act remained in force and apply for execution of the decree in suit No. 282 of 1945 after the act was repealed. The plaintiff has come up to this Court in second appeal.

(3.) THE only question for consideration in this appeal is whether the suit was maintainable. The learned Civil Judge was of the opinion that no fresh suit could be filed.