JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J. — This appeal by special leave against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court unfolds a tell-tale plight of an unfortunate litigant who, after obtaining a decree for ejectment, was driven from pillar to post to go the said decree executed. His attempts to get the said decree executed were stalled sometimes by objections filed by the tenant-appellant and sometimes by amendments made in the law with the result that even after 13 years of litigation the landlord-respondent was not able to set possession of the premises. This was because of a statutory amendment which made the decree obtained by him inexecutable and was, therefore, lying dormant and ineffective.

2. The legislature having realised the hardship of such landlords came to their rescue by in amendment in 1976 to the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short, to be referred to as the 1972 Act) which was expressly given retrospective operation so as to revive the decrees which had become inexecutable.

3. When the appeal was heard and the arguments were concluded the respondents had made a good gesture in agreeing to allow the tenant two years time to vacate the premises on giving the usual undertaking and accordingly we adjourned the case to enable the parties to come to a settlement. However, we were informed by counsel for the parties that no settlement could be reached; hence we have now to decide the case on merits.

4. And now to the facts of the case. The respondent-landlord filed a suit for ejectment in the year 1971 and obtained a decree for ejectment against the appellant-tenant. By virtue of the provisions of 1972 Act, the case was transferred to the Court of the Judge, Small Causes, who tried the case and passed a decree in favour of the respondent on 4-4-1973. It may be noted that the tenant did not object to the jurisdiction not did he prefer any appeal or revision against the said judgment dated 4-4-73 and the same became final.

5. Thereafter, the decree-holders filed an execution petition being Execution Case No. 4 of 1973. The appellant however, raised a jurisdictional objection on the basis of a judgment of the Allahabad High Court reported in 1975 All LR 360 that the transfer of a suit before conferment of jurisdiction to the Judge, Small Causes Court was not competent and, therefore the decree was not executable. Counsel for the respondents under some misconception conceded that the suit would have to be tried all over again and the execution case was, therefore, disposed of by an Order dated 31-1-1976 passed by the Executing Court. The Court held that the decree was without jurisdiction. The respondents, however, took the stand that a concession on a point of law was not binding on him nor was his Advocate authorised to make such a concession. However, the decree remained inexecutable, but by virtue of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Amendment Act). Section 9 of the 1972 Act (U. P. Civil Laws Amendment Act. 1972) was made applicable with retrospective effect to remove the injustice and remedy the mischief which had been caused to the decree-holders. The relevant portion of the said amendment may be extracted thus :

"26. Transitory provision

xx xx xx

(6) The provision of Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 shall apply and shall be deemed always to have applied in relation to suits of the nature referred to therein which before the commencement of that Act had been transferred to a competent Court and were pending immediately before the date of commencement of that Act in such transferee Court as they apply in relation to suits which were pending in the Court in which they were instituted :

Provided that any such suit decided by the transferee Court between the commencement of the said Act and the commencement of this Act on the assumption that the said Sec. 9 did not apply to