( 1 ) THIS is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for his ejectment from certain premises situate at Chhibramau in the District of Farrukhabad. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court, the provisions of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and eviction Act (in [3] of 1947), were extended to the town area of Chhibramau also. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is entitled to the benefits of the Act and, therefore, he cannot be ejected. It is submitted that this point was not urged before the lower appellate Court, because while the case was pending before that Court it was not krown that the Act has been extended to the Chhibramau town area. I have, therefore, permitted the learned counsel for the appellant to satisfy me that he is entitled to resist ejectment by reason of the aforesaid Act. The mere fact that the Act has been extended to the town area of chhibramau will not render the suit liable to dismissal unless the learned counsel can point out some provision of the Act which requires the suit to be dismissed. Learned counsel has referred to Sections 3 and 15 of the Act in supp