BASANT LAL Vs. DHANWANTI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of the judgment and decree dated 31st October, 1968 passed by Civil Judge, Agra in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1968. The facts leading up to this appeal can briefly be stated as under.

(2.) THE appellant filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the respondents from the premises in suit and for mesne profits. It was alleged that the appellant was owner and land-lord of the house in suit. In the year 1959, he filed a suit wherein a compromise was entered into between the parties. In consequence of that compromise, a lease was executed in favour of the respondents on 31st August, 1961, under which the respondents were to continue to occupy the house in suit for a period of five years. That period of five years expired in 1966 but the respondents did not vacate the pre­mises and hence necessity to file the suit. It was also alleged that a notice termintating the tenancy of the respondents had been served on them. The suit was resisted, inter alia, on the ground that it was not maintain­able in view of the provisions contained in Section 3 of U. P. Act, No. III of 1947. The other contentions raised in the suit are not materials for the dis­posal of this appeal.

(3.) FEELING dis-satisfied with the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, the plaintiff has come up in appeal before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant contended before me that even accep­ting that the suit was barred by the provisions of U. P. Act. No. Ill of 1947 when it was filed, that Act is no more on the statute book having been repealed by U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, and, consequently, the appellant is now entitled to get the decree for ejectment and mesne profits against the respondent. It was urged by the learned counsel that the appeal in continuation of the suit and the appellate court must take notice of the legislative changes in order to grant necessary relief to a plaintiff. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, since U. P. Act No. Ill of 1947, which contained a bar, has been repealed and since there is no bar in Act No. XIiI of 1972 against a suit for ejectment being filed where the tenancy is for a fixed term, made in conse­quence of a compromise, this court should grant the decree in favour of the appellant.