B.P.JHA, J.

1. Defendant (tenant) preferred this civil revision application against an order dated 12-2-77 passed by the Additional Munsif, 4th Court, Patna, in Title Suit No. 67/26 of 1973/76.

2. The plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit for eviction of defendant-tenant. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff filed an application on 4-6-74 under S.11A of the Bihar (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (Bihar Act III of 1947) (hereinafter to be referred to as the 1947 Act) for directing the defendant to deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 85/- per month. The defendant filed a rejoinder to that petition on 17-1-77. On 12-2-77 the court directed the defendant under Sec.11A of the 1947 Act to deposit arrears of rent in respect of the suit premises from 17-4-73 till January, 1977 at the rate of Rs. 85/- per month within 15 days from the date of the order. The defendant was also directed to deposit current as well as future rent of the suit premises at the same rate by the 15th day of the next following month.

3. This revision was referred to Division Bench by Birendra Prasad Sinha. J., on the ground that there are two contradictory decisions in respect of an interpretation of Sec. 1(3) and second proviso thereto of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 (Act 16 of 1977) (hereinafter to be referred to as the "1977 Act").

4. S.K. Choudhuri, J., is of opinion that if an order is passed between 1st April, 1976 and before 8th Sep., 1977, the order passed by the trial Judge is non est (see (Dr.) Sailendranath Roy V/s. (Dr.) (Miss) Geeta Mazumdar, 1978 BBCJ (HC) 214 : (AIR 1978 Pat 207)). A contrary view was taken by Madan Mohan Prasad, J., in Prabhat Kumar Das V/s. Santhal Paharia Sewa Mandal, 1978 0 BBCJ(HC) 297. It is for this reason that the learned single Judge referred this revision by an order dated 4th Jan., 1978.

5. The 1947 Act expired by virtue of Sub-Section (3) of S.1 on 31st March, 1976. The 1977 Act came in force on 8th Sep., 1977. Between 1st April, 1976 and 7th Sep., 1977 no act was in force.

6. The simple point for consideration in this revision is : what is the effect of an order passed in between 1st April, 1976 and 7th Sep., 1977 in a suit which was legally instituted before 31st March, 1976 under the provisions of the 1947 Act ? In this connection it is relevant to refer to Sub-Section (3) of S.1 and the relevant proviso thereto under the 1947 Act, which runs as follows :

"(3) It shall remain in force up to and including the 31st March. 1976 provided that the expiration of this Act under the operation of this Sub-Section shall not - x x x x x

(b) affect any liability incurred under this Act or any punishment incurred in respect of any contravention of this Act or any order made thereunder; or

(c) affect any investigation or legal proceeding in respect of any such liability or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation or legal proceeding may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such punishment may be imposed, as if this Act had not expired."

On a perusal of Cl.(b) of the proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Sec. 1 of the 1947 Act, it is clear that even after the expiration of the said Act (1947 Act) it shall not affect any liability incurred under that Act. In the present case, the plaintiff filed an application under Sec. 11A of the 1947 Act on 4th June, 1974 and the order was passed by the court on 12-2-1977. Admittedly on 12-2-1977, the 1947 Act was not in force. By virtue of the saving clause as laid down in proviso (b) to Sub-Section (3) of Sec. 1, it is clear that even after the expiration of the 1947 Act it shall not affect any liability incurred under that Act. Relying on the saving clause, I hold that, if an order under Sec.11-A has been passed on 12-2-1977, it shall not affect the liability of the tenant to pay the rent as directed under S.11-A of the 1947 Act.

7. Clause (c) of the second proviso to Sub-Section (3) of S.1 of the 1977 Act is a