Agarwala, J.

1. This appeal is by the plaintiff, and arises out of a suit to eject the defendants, who are members of a joint Hindu family, from a house belonging to the plaintiff. The shop was let to the defendants at a monthly rental of Rs. 415 by a registered lease dated 19th December 1939. The lease was for a period of three years beginning from the date on which the lessees should take possession of the premises. There was, however, a provision that the defendants should be entitled to three months notice if they should be required to quit. The lessees occupation of the premises began on 23rd November 1940. On 9th November 1943, plaintiff served on them a notice stating, "I give you 3 months notice to quit the premises," calling upon them, "kindly to vacate the same on the receipt of this notice." The lessees not having complied with the notice the plaintiff applied to the House-rent Control Officer to eject them, and an order for eviction was made on 17th January 1945 and was later confirmed by the Commissioner on appeal, who, however, gave the lessees three months time to vacate the premises. The lessees, however, remained in occupation of the premises and instituted title suit No. 52 of 1945, in the Court of the Munsif of Bhagalpur for a decision that the eviction order was ultra vires the House-rent Control Officer on the ground that the House-rent Control Order applied only to monthly tenancies. This contention was accepted by the Munsif, and the suit was decreed on the ground that the lessees were not monthly tenants. An appeal preferred by the lessor was dismissed. The latter then served on the lessees a notice dated 14th December 1946, calling upon them "to vacate the said holding at once." A further notice calling upon them "to quit the house at once" was served on 14th December 1946. These notices not having been complied with, the lessor instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen praying for a decision that the defendants are trespassers and for a decree directing them to deliver the premises to the plaintiff. the suit was dismissed by the Additional District Judge of Bhagalpur. An appeal by the plaintiff came before Sinha and Mababir Prasad JJ. who made the following order :

"The main question in controversy between the parties is the application of certain provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, (Bihar Act III [3] of 1947). On this question, the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Manohar Lal and Imam JJ. dated sometime in November 1947, Shiveshwar V/s. Parmeshwar, 27 Pat. 1 : (A. I. R. (36) 1949 Pat. 355) is entirely in favour of the appellant; whereas a later decision of another Division Bench of this Court consisting of Imam and Narayan JJ., Sant Kuer V/s. Ganesh, A I. R. (36) 1949 Pat. 137 : (27 Pat. 695), seems to favour the respondents contention. There is thus a conflict of decisions on the main question in controversy between the parties, and it is desirable that this conflict should be resolved as early as possible. Another very important question has been raised by Mr. Das on behalf of the appellant, namely, whether the recent decision of the Federal Court in the case of Jatindra Nath V/s. Province of Bihar, A. I. R. (36) 1949 F. C. 175 : (50 Cr. L. J. 897), does not render the Act aforesaid ultra vires. This is a question of far-reaching importance to people of this Province, and must also be resolved as early as possible. As the questions referred to above arise in a first appeal, we formulate the following two questions for decision by a larger Bench : (1) Whether the definition of tenant appearing in the Bihar Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (Bihar Act, III [3] of 1947), or the Bihar Ordinance II [2] of 1946, which it replaced is retrospective in its operation, and protects the defendants in the circumstances of this case and

(2) Whether the annual extension of the Act aforesaid by the Provin