- (1.) THE circumstances that give rise to this second appeal may briefly be stated thus. THE parties to the case belonged to, and the land in dispute is situated in village Shah-jahanpur, which prior to 26. 1. 1950 was included within the territory of the State of Punjab. During this period i. e. on 15. 11. 1949, the appellant caused a notice of ejectment to be served upon the respondent in respect of the land in dispute under sec. 43 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. As provided in sec. 45 (4) of the aforesaid Act the respondent was allowed a period of 2 months commencing from the date of service of the notice to contest his liability to ejectment. It is admitted that the respondent did not take any steps within this period to contest his liability to ejectment. On 26. 1. 1950 as a result of exchange of enclaves sponsored by the Central Government Shahjahanpur village was transferred from the State of Punjab to that of Rajasthan. THE file wherein the notice of ejectment was served upon the respondent on 15. 11. 1949 was closed by the Tehsildar Rewari on 25 2-1950 with the observation that as the notice of ejectment has been served the case be closed. On 3. 6. 1950 the appellant presented an application for execution of the "decree" dated 25 2-1950 before the Assistant Collector Behror (Rajasthan) and the same was rejected on the ground that during the continuance of the Rajasthan (Protec-tion
(2.) OF Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, no ejectment OF a tenant was permissible. This Ordinance was repealed by the enforcement OF the Rajasthan Tenancy Act on 15. 10. 55. On 17-12 1955 the appellant put up an application before the S. D. O. Behror praying therein that he had obtained a decree for ejectment against the respondent, that he bad applied for its execution on 3. 6. 1950 which was refused on account OF the conti-nuance OF the Rajasthan (Protection OF Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, and as the Ordinance, 1949, and as the Ordinance had been repealed on 15-10 55 the execution case should be revived and possession be restored to him. The S. D. O. held that there was no decree or order capable OF execution inasmuch as the appellant was bound to put up a fresh application under sec. 45 (5) OF the Punjab Tenancy Act and as he had not done anything OF the kind he cannot take out any execution proceedings. It was also observed by the S. D. O. that in view OF the provisions contained in sec. 161 OF the Rajasthan Tenancy Act no tenant can be ejected from his holding otherwise than in accordance with the provisions OF the Act and as the application, dated 17. 12. 1955 was not within the provisions OF this Act no action could be taken upon it. The appellant went up in first appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner, but met with no success. Hence this second appeal. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record as well. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the appellant had commenced a legal proceeding under the Punjab Tenancy Act and he is entitled to continue the same and seek his remedy in accordance therewith under the provisions of sec. 6 of the General Glauses Act. A number of decisions have been cited by him in this connection which may be noted as below : - 1940 R. D. 557 1941 R. D. 1071 " " 379 " " 167 " " 408 " " 1081 " " 899 It is not necessary to examine all these decisions in detail for they lay down one and the same principles viz. that the repeal of an Act shall not affect any legal proceedings commenced before the repealed Act shall have come into operation and that any such proceedings may be continued and concluded as if the repealed Act had not been enforced, unless different intention appears. 1 he manner in which the words "unless different intention appears" are to be understood, was explained by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in AIR 1955 S. C. 84 and it was laid down as below : "whenever there is a repeal of an enactment, the consequences laid down in sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act will follow unless as the section itself says, a different intention appears. In the case of simple repeal there is scarcely any room for expression of a contrary intention but when the repeal is followed by fresh legislation on the same subject we would undoubtedly have to look to the provisions of the new Act, only for the purpose of determining whether they enact a different intention. The line of enquiry would be, not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them. " This view was re-affirmed in A. I. R. 1956 Sec. 77 where it was pointed out that "it cannot be said as a broad proposition that sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act is ruled out where there is a repeal of an enactment followed by fresh legislation. Sec. 6 would be applicable in such cases also unless the new legislation manifests an intention incompatible with or contrary to the provision of this section. Such incompatibility would have to be ascertained from a consideration of all the relevant provisions of the new law". We have to apply this test to the present case and see how far the provisions of sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act can help the appellant. Even if we assume for a, moment that the appellant had secured an order of ejectment prior to the enforcement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act a proposition which has absolutely no basis, for the appellant was bound to put up a fresh application under sec. 45 (5) of the Punjab Tenancy Act for securing an order of ejectment after the expiry of two months from the date of the service of notice of ejectment, and he did not put in such an application it is clear now that the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 would render the execution of that order incompatible with the provisions of the Act. Sec. 161 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act lays down that no tenant shall be ejected from his holding otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Sec. 43 of the Punjab Tenancy Act provided that when the tenant has any right of occupancy and does not hold for a fixed term under a contract or a decree or order of competent authority the landlord could apply for service on the tenant of the notice of ejectment. As provided in sec. 45 of the Punjab Tenancy Act if he did not institute a suit to contest his liability to be ejected the tenant was to be ejected by a revenue officer on the application of the land-lord. The Rajasthan Tenancy Act contains no provisions for such ejectments. Sec. 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act lays down that any person who at the commencement of the Act is a tenant, otherwise than as a sub-tenant or a tenant of khudkasht, shall be entitled to all the rights conferred and be subject to all the liabilitiesimposed on khatedar tenants by this Act, subject to the provisions of sec. 16 which lays down the lands in which khudkusht rights in the land shall not accrue. Sec. 161 is the first section of Chapter XI dealing with ejectments. It lays down that no tenant shall be ejected from bis holding otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act. This provision is a clear manifestation of the intention of the legislature to lay down that after the enforcement of the Act no ejectment even if it be in pursuance of or in compliance with legal proceedings that may have been carried out prior to the enforcement of the Act, shall be carried out, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. In this Act ejectment is provided for arrear of rent (sec. 169), for illegal transfer or sub-letting (sec. 175) and ejectment for detrimental act or breach of condition, (sec. 177 ). Sec. 180 lays down additional provisions of ejectment of khudkasht or ghair khatedar tenants or sub-tenant. Sec. 183 deals with ejectment of trespassers There is no provision in the Act for ordering ejectment on the failure of a tenant to contest his liability to ejectment on a notice of ejectment having been served upon him in accordance with the provisions of any law that may have been in force prior to the enforcement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Sec. 157 of the U. P. Tenancy Act corresponds exactly with sec. 161 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. A similar question arose before and was decided by the Board of Revenue U. P. which is reported in 1914 R. D 251. The question in that case was whether the change in the status of the defendants subsequent to the passing of the order for their ejectment can be taken into consideration or not when the Zamindar had applied for the execution of that order. It was argued on behalf of the sub-tenant that sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act was not applicable by virtue of sec. 157 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. Sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act provides that sec. was not applicable where a contrary intention appeared from the repealing Act and sec. 57 of the U. P. Tenancy Act was held to be a clear expression of the contrary intention. We may point out that this decision of the U. P. Board over ruled its previous decision in 1941 R. D. 1071 on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Sec. 161 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is also a clear manifestation of the intention of the legislature to lay down that after the enforcement of the Act if there is to be any ejectment of a tenant it shall have to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act will, therefore, have no application to the present case as a different intention is clear from the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The application presented by the appellant, therefore, was rightly rejected by the lower courts. There is no substance in this appeal which is hereby rejected. .;