A lease entered into in violation of the provisions of Section 3 of the Rent Act is valid between the parties and creates the relationship of landlord and tenant between them, although it is void against the authorised officer specified in sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Rent Act.

( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal arises out of the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. The material facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under: one M. Satyanarayana was the owner of the suit property. He agreed to sell it to the plaintiff. That agreement led to the suit for specific performance by the plaintiff against the said Satyanaryana. The litigation went right upto the Supreme Court and ultimately a decree for specific performance was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court rendered its decision on 7-8-1965.

( 2 ) ONE Tuljaram Neemkar was the original tenant of the suit premises. The defendant who is his cousin took over from him the business which was run in the suit premises and continued it there. The plaintiff recognised him as his tenant. In 1968 the plaintiff filed eviction petition against the defendant before the Rent Controller. It was R. C. 97 of 68. There was a compromise between the parties in that eviction petition and the defendant continued to be in possession of the suit premises. The present suit, O. S. 1474/73, has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for eviction on the ground that the defendant has been the trespasser. The plaintiff has made his claim on the ground that when the suit premises had fallen vacant earlier, the vacancy was not notified to the Accommodation Controller and that without doing so the defendant was inducted into the premises The defendant was therefore inducted unlawfully into the suppressed vacancy and that therefore no tenancy rights accrued to him. The plaintiff s case was based upon Sec. 3 of the A P. Buildings (Lease,rent and Eviction) Control act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the rent Act for the sake of brevity ). The trial Court accepted the case advanced by the plaintiff and held that the defendant has been the trespasser. Decree for possession was therefore passed against him.

( 3 ) THE defendant challenged that decree in an appeal which he filed in the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court confirmed the decree and dismissed the appeal.

( 4 ) IT is that Appellate Court decree which is challenged by the defendant in this Second Appeal.

( 5 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the defendant by Mr. N. Ramachandra rao, that even though the lease between the plaintiff and the defendant may not be valid for the purpose of Sec. 3 of the Rent Act, it is binding as between the parties. He has therefore contended that the plaintiff having let out the suit premises to the defendant cannot turn round and contend that the contract was illegal and that therefore no rights accrued to the defendant. He has also argued that it is not open the plaintiff to take advantage of his own wrong.

( 6 ) A similar question arose before a Bench of this Court in g. Eswaraiah vs. Mahendrappa Khani 1969 (2) APLJ 66 It was a case which directly arose under the Rent Act. A similar question arose before the Supreme Court under the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and eviction Act (3 of 1947) in Murlidhar v. State of U. P. AIR 1974 S. C. p. 1924. In Mirza (Mohd.) v. Balakistaiah 1975 (2; APLJ p. 96 Lakshmaiah, j. sitting single has taken the view that the contract similar to one which a bench of this Court held to be invalid in the Eswaraih s case ;1) is valid, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Murlidhar v. State of U. P. AIR 1974 S. C. p. 1974. A similar view has also been taken by Vimadalal, j, in S. Anjaiah V. K. Kishtamma 1976 (2) APLJ p. 109. The view expressed by the two learned single judges in the two decisions referred to above has cast doubt upon the validity of the decision of the Bench of this Court in Eswaraiah s case (1 ). Therefore, this Second Appeal was referred to the Bench by my learned brother for a fuller examination of the question.

( 7 ) IN order to find out whether the decision of the Bench of this court in Eswaraiah s case (l) is still good law or has ceased to be so and in order to examin