(1.) The Plaintiff-Respondent is the owner of the house occupied by the Appellant. He obtained a decree on the 8th of April, 1946 for the ejectment of the Appellant. This decree could not be executed because of Section 14 of Act III of 1947. Later on the Plaintiff obtained the permission of the District Magistrate and filed suit No. 416 of 1951 on the basis of this permission and also on the ground that the Defendant had committed a wilful default in the payment of rent. Various objections were taken including the objection that a decree having been passed in respect of the same period, no further suit lay.
(2.) The trial Court accepted this plea, and while it passed a decree for Rs. 34/8/- as arrears of rent, it dismissed the suit for ejectment. On appeal the lower appellate Court held that the previous decree did not prevent another decree for the same period on the ground that the causes of action are different. Section 14 directs that a decree passed before the commencement of this Act shall and in so far as it relates to the eviction of a tenant not be executed against him except on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 3 of the Act. One of the grounds mentioned in Section 3 of the Act is (a) wilful default in the payment of arrears. Power has been given to the District Magistrate also to permit the institution of a suit by the same section. If these two conditions existed, they would justify the execution of a decree which had already been passed. It cannot be said, therefore, that the decree had become infructuous. The second suit therefore, would not lie while the first decree existed in respect of the same matter.
(3.) This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside and the decree of the trial Court is restored. Since no one appears for the Respondent I direct that the parties shall bear their own costs Stay order dated 9th October, 1953 is vacated.