Seth, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor to a decree passed against him on 31-10-1945 which entitles the decree-holder respondent to evict him (the judgment-debtor, appellant) from a house, by putting the decree in execution, if he (the judgment-debtor) fails to vacate it by 31-12 1946. The suit which resulted in the decree, was instituted on 7-10-1944, with the permission of the District Magistrate which was perhaps necessary to maintain the suit because of certain control orders, then in force.
(2.) The judgment-debtor failed to vacate the house by 31-12-1946, and so the decree-holder put the decree in execution on 11-1-1947. Before the decree-holder could succeed in evicting the judgment, debtor the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (III [3] of 1947) came into force, with retrospective effect from 1-10-1946. Section 14 of the Act provides: "No decree for the eviction of a tenant from any accommodation passed before the date of commencement of this Act shall, in so far as it relates to the eviction of such tenant, be executed against him as long as this Act remains in force, except on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 3: Provided that the tenant agrees to pay to the land-land 'reasonable annual rent' or the rent payable by him before the passing of the decree, whichever is higher." Section 3, referred to in Section 14, reads thus: "No suit shall, without the permission of the District Magistrate, be filed in any civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation, except on one or more of the following grounds:- (a) that the tenant has wilfully failed to make payment to the landlord of any arrears of rent within one month of the service upon him of a notice of demand from the landlord; (b) that the tenant has wilfully caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the accommodation; (c) that the tenant has, without the permission o the landlord, made or permitted to be made any such construction as, in the opinion of the Court, has materially altered the accommodation or is likely substantially to diminish its value; (d) that the tenant has created a nuisance or has done any act which is inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation, or which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the landlord's interest therein; (e) that the tenant has on or after 1-10-1946, sublet the whole or any portion of the accommodation without the permission of the landlord; (f) that the tenant has renounced his character as such or denied the title of the landlord and the latter has not waived his right or condoned the conduct of the tenant. Explanation: For the purposes of section (e) lodging a person in a hotel or a lodging house shall not be deemed to be sub-letting."
(3.) Relying on these sections, the judgment-debtor objected to the execution of the decree against him, contending that it could not be executed so long as the Act remained in force. The executing Court overruled this contention and rejected the objection. The judgment-debtor then appealed to the lower appellate Court but without success. He has now come up to this Court in second appeal and has repeated the same objection to the execution of the decree.;