J. K. TANDON, J.

( 1 ) THESE are three appeals in which a common question of law as to the effect of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction (Amendment) Act, 1954, arises. Appeals Nos. 168 of 51 and 821 of 53 have been referred to a Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court, as an important question of law, about which there was some conflict also was raised. In Special appeal No. 1 of 56 also the same question is involved. All the three appeals have accordingly been heard together. In order to appreciate the points in controversy the following short history of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 may be necessary. This Act was first enacted in 1947 and was by virtue of Sub-section (3) of Section 1 thereof given effect to on and from the 1st day of October, 1946. Section 3 of the Act placed restriction on the right of a landlord to file a suit for eviction of a tenant from any accommodation in these terms: "no suit shall, without the permission of the District Magistrate, be filed in any civil court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation, except on one or more of the following grounds : - (a) that the tenant has wilfully failed to make payment to the landlord of any arrears of rent within one month of the service upon him of a notice of demand from the landlord (b ). . . . . . . . . " the above provision continued in that form in the Act until 30th September, 1954 when it was amended by the U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction (Amendment) Act, 1954. In its amended form Clause (a) read as follows : - " (a) That the tenant is in arrears of rent for more than three months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month of the service upon him of a notice of demand. " the amending Act of 1954 further provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 1 that it shall come into force with effect from 30th September, 1954. An express provision was thus made in this act of 1954 that it shall come into force with effect from 30th September, 1954.

( 2 ) FROM a comparison of the old and the new version of Clause (a) referred to above it would appear that originally the provision in it was in respect of "any arrear of rent" as distinguished from the new provision, according to which the arrear had to be for more than three months. The rest of the provisions remained more or less the same at least in this respect that the liability of the tenant continued to rest on his failure to pay the arrears within one month of the service upon him of the notice of demand.

( 3 ) THE three suits of which the three appeals have arisen were admittedly instituted prior to 1st october, 1954, when the amending Act of 1954 came into force. In the case of Second Appeal no. 168 of 51 the suit was commenced in 1949 and there was at the time of the institution of the suit an arrear of rent due from the tenant for three months only, that is, from 1st January, 1949 to 31st March, 1949. Besides the arrears amounting to Rs. 225/-, the plaintiff also claimed Rs. 75/as compensation for use and occupation of the accommodation during the month of April, 1949.

( 4 ) IN the case of Second Appeal No. 321 of 53 two months rent was in arrear at the time of the institution. Besides the allegation by the landlord also was that the defendant had caused damage to the accommodation for which he claimed a sum of Rs. 200/ -. This suit was commenced in 1951.

( 5 ) IN the case of Special Appeal No. 1 of 56 the defendant occupied the accommodation in suit at a rent of Rs. 6/- per mensem and he was in arrears of rent from 1st May, 1951 to 31st July, 1951, that is, for three months when a notice was served upon him demanding the same. This suit, too, was instituted in 1951.

( 6 ) IN the last mentioned case the trial court dismissed the suit for ejectment but upheld the claim for arrears of rent. It, however, allowed deduction for alleged repairs done to the house by the tenant. On appeal the learned Civil Judge repelled t