KULSUMUNNISA Vs. MOHD RAMZAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case a decree for arrears of rent and ejectment was passed against the respondent with respect to a house before the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, (U.P. Act in [3] of 1917) came into force. The date on which this Act came into force was according to Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of that Act 1-10-1946. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and a conditional decree for ejectment was passed, the condition being that if the defendant did not deposit in Court a certain sum of money within two weeks, the ejectment was to take effect. The plaintiff-appellant went up in appeal and the Civil Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for ejectment. He, however, attached a condition that it was open to the execution Court to consider the question of default on the part of the defendant and the applicability of the District Magistrate's order in the light of a ruling reported in Makhanlal v. Shankerlal, 1944 ALL. L.W. 591. It appears that an Ordinance relating to the control of rent and ejectment was in force at that time. After that the appellant made an application to the execution Court for the execution of the decree for ejectment against the respondent. That Court, however, took the view that the respondent could only be ejected if it appeared that the rent was still in arrears on the date on which the execution application was made. He, however, found that the respondent had in fact deposited a sum of Rs. 456-13-0 in Court and that no rent was in arrears and accordingly dismissed the execution application. The appellant went up in appeal from this order of the execution Court. The order of the execution Court was passed on 30-3-1946 and when the matter came up before the learned Civil Judge for disposal, the D. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, was already in force. The learned Civil Judge accordingly relying upon Section 14 of the Act dismissed the appeal; It is, however, argued that Section 14 will have no application to the present case and that the matter should be decided in accordance with the law as it existed on the date on which the orders were passed by the execution Court. I do not agree with this contention. Section 14 of the Act is reproduced below :

(2.) I accordingly dismiss the appeal under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil P. C.