P.V. Dixit, C.J. - (1.) THIS Letters Patent appeal from a decision of Tare J., arises out of execution proceedings of an ejectment decree obtained by the Respondent against the Appellant from the Court of the Additional Munsiff, Bhopal. An appeal preferred by the tenant against the judgment and decree of the Additional Munsiff, Bhopal, was dismissed on 6th November, 1958. In execution proceedings of that decree, which was initiated after the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955, came into force on 1st January 1959, the tenant raised the objections that the decree was not executable as none of the grounds mentioned in section 4 of the Act existed and that the decree that was executable was of the appellate Court and not of the original Court.
(2.) THE executing Court rejected the tenant's objection resting on Section 16 of the Act. The objection that the decree of the trial Court was not executable as it had merged into the decree of the appellate Court was upheld and the execution application was dismissed. Both the tenant and the landlord then preferred appeals in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Bhopal. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the judgment -debtor's objection that in view of the provisions of section 16 of the Act the decree could not be executed against him except on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 4. Accordingly the judgment -debtor's appeal was allowed and the decree -holder's appeal was dismissed. Thereupon the decree -holder came up in second appeal to this Court. The learned Single Judge took the view that the decree for ejectment passed in favour of the Respondent before the commencement of the Act was in fact on one of the grounds mentioned in Section 4, to wt(sic), the need of the landlord, and, therefore, the executing Court had no power under Section 16 to hold any enquiry as to whether the decree in execution was passed on one of the grounds specified in Section 4. The learned Single Judge thought that the decisions in Abdul Haq v. Raghovendra Singh : 1961 JLJ 1144, and Sardar Raghbir Singh v. Komalchand,, 1962 JLJ SN 116, did not support the proposition that an enquiry under Section 16 was necessary even in the case of execution of a decree passed before the commencement of the Act but on a ground indicated in Section 4. He further observed that after the passing of the decree there was no change in the circumstances and the ground of bona fide need of the landlord on which the decree had been passed still existed at the time of the execution of the decree and consequently no enquiry as to the existence of a ground under Section 4 of the Act was necessary. It was further held by the learned Single Judge that the decree which was executable was that of the appellate Court and the application for execution of the decree should not have been dismissed if the decree -holder sought to execute the decree of the original Court, but that the decree -holder should have been allowed to amend the application so as to make it one for the execution of the appellate Court's decree The learned Single Judge accordingly remitted the matter to the executing Court with the direction to proceed with the execution after the decree -holder has amended his application for execution.
(3.) BEFORE us, the only contention that was put forward by Shri Dabir, learned Counsel for the Appellant, was that the decree of the appellate Court having been passed before the commencement of the Act, it could not be executed without any determination as to the existence of the grounds stated in Section 4 at the time of the execution; that the decree in question was not, in fact, on any of the grounds falling under Section 4; and that even if it was, Section 16 did not cease to be applicable so as to dispense with an enquiry into the existence of a ground for ejectment under Section 4 at the time of the execution.;