The decision of the Collector under Act VII [7] of 1944 that the premises were not required by the landlord reasonably bona fide became final no civil Ct. had jurisdiction to deal with that question. The repeal of Act VII [7] of 1944 did not affect the right of the tenant acquired under the repealed Act, including the finality of the Collector's decision.

Chagla, C.J.

1. This is an appln. in revn. against an order passed by the Pull Court of the Small Causes Ct. Bombay, setting aside the decree of the trial Ct. which dismissed the pltf.s suit for ejectment. The Full Ct. passed the decree for ejectment in favour of the pltf.

2. The contention of Mr. Patwardhan is that in view of certain events that have happened prior to the filing of this suit in the Small Causes Ct. the Small Causes Ct. had no jurisdiction to pass the decree. It would appear that the pltf. applied for a certificate from the Controller under Act VII [7] of 1944 to the effect that he required the premises reasonably bona fide. The Controller held against him. He went in appeal to the Collector the Collector confirmed the decision of the Controller.

3. Under that Act a landlord could eject his tenant on the ground that he required the premises reasonably bona fide only if he obtained a certificate from the Controller to that effect, the landlord had the right if the Controller held against him to appeal to the Collector under Section 14. But Section 14 (3) provided that the decision of the Collector, subject only to such decision, the order of the Controller shall for the purposes of that part be final no civil Ct. shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which was by or under that part settled, decided or dealt with by the Controller Collector. Therefore it is clear that under Act VII [7] of 1944 the decision of the Collector that the premises were not required by the landlord reasonably bona fide became final no civil Ct. had jurisdiction to deal with that question. The new Rent Act No. LVII [57] of 1947 came into force on 13-2-1948, the pltf. filed a suit in the Small Causes Ct. on the same ground, viz. that he required the premises reasonably bona fide, on 1-4-1948. The question that I have to consider is as to whether the repeal of Act VII [7] of 1944 had the effect of altering the provisions of Section 14 of that Act in the sense that although that law made the decision of the Collector final ousted the jurisdiction of the civil Ct. whether the repeal of that Act the passing of the new Act gave jurisdiction to the Small Causes Ct., to go behind the decision of the Collector to go into the question as to whether the landlord reasonably bona fide required the premises. The effect of the repeal of an Act is provided by Section 7, Bombay General Clauses Act, that section provides that unless a different intention appears the repeal of an Act shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so made. Therefore, if the deft, had acquired any right under the repealed Act, that right could not be affected unless a different intention appeared in the Act repealing the earlier Act. Clearly, the deft, did acquire a right under the repealed Act that right was that the decision of the Collector in his favour had become final the jurisdiction of the civil Ct. to go into that question had been ousted. Therefore, the question that I have to consider is whether under the new Act there is an intention which goes to show that this right of the deft. has been taken away. It is important to note that the ground put forward by the pltf. before the Controller the Collector was that two of his sons had got married early in 1946 he required the premises because of that marriage according to him that requirement was reasonable bona fide. The requirement put forward by him in the suit before the Small Causes Ct. is identical. It is on the same ground that he says he requires the premises. The trial Ct. held that his requirement was not reasonable bona fide; the Pull Court has taken the contrary view. I may point out that the Pull Court has also considered the balance of convenience according to the Pull Court the balance of convenience is in favour of the landlord not in favour of the tenant