( 1 ) I agree that we must take into consideration any change in law which has supervened since the judgments in this case were entered.

( 2 ) THE U. P. Act III [3] of 1947 (U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947) was made applicable to the Hasanpur Notified Area on 26-9-1947, that is to say, on a date after the present second appeal was filed in this Court.

( 3 ) THE effect of the Notification in the Official Gazette declaring that the Act was applied to hasanpur is that every part of the Act becomes applicable. Once the Act is applied, it must, by virtue of Section 1, Sub-section (3), be deemed to have come into operation on 1-10-1946. That is a date which is prior to 29-11-1946 on which date the suit out of which this appeal arises, was instituted. Therefore, the position is that no decree for ejectment can now be passed on grounds other than those specified in Section 3 of the said Act.

( 4 ) WHEN the plaint was filed, the pleader could not have known that the plaint would be hit by an act which would have retrospective effect and, therefore, the plaint was not based on the restricted grounds which are available to a plaintiff under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act.

( 5 ) IT would, therefore, be unfair to throw out the suit without giving the plaintiff a chance of amending his plaint and incorporating any of the grounds set out in Section 3 which may be available to him.

( 6 ) I can see no reason for distinguishing between a case where the Act becomes immediately applicable, by its own terms, to an area already specified and a case where it becomes applicable to an area by virtue of a subsequent Notification making it applicable. In either case, the Act does not come into operation only on the date on which it becomes applicable to the areas, but conies into operation, by virtue of Section 1, Sub-section (3), from a date anterior, namely, the 1st day of October, 1946.

( 7 ) I do not appreciate the distinction sought to be made in this regard between a case where the area, in which it will come into force, is specified in the statute and the case where an area in which it will come into force is specified by means of a subsequent Notification made by an authority empowered to so notify by the Act itself. I do not agree that when the Act is applied to a particular area by means of a Notification published, it has any other effect than that it brings about the commencement of the Act, and makes it come into operation on the 1st day of October, 1946. I respectfully disagree with the view expressed in Rup Lal v. Ram Swarup, 1950 ALL L. J. 345. The date of the commencement of the Act in such a case also is the date on which the Act is applied to a particular area. The Act commences to be applicable on that date and by virtue of the retrospective clause, its operation becomes effective as from the 1st of October, 1946.

( 8 ) BIND Basni Prasad J.--This second appeal has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge as he could not reconcile the decision of a learned Single Judge in Rup Lal v. Ram swarup, 1950 ALL L. J. 345 and the Division Bench decisions in Niranjan Lal v. Mt. Ram Kali devi, 1950 ALL L. j. 642 and Lala Raj Narain v. Sita Ram Sri Kishendas, S. A. No. 979 of 1945, d/- 3-11-1950.

( 9 ) THE facts are simple. On 29-11-1946, the plaintiff brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif of amroha for the ejectment of the defendant from a shop situated in the Notified Area of Hansapur and for the recovery of Rs. 13/- as arrears of four months rent. The defendant admitted the tenancy, but contested the claim on the ground that the notice of ejectment was invalid and that the suit was barred by the U. P. Ordinance No. 3 of 1946 and by the U. P. Temporary Control of rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (Act in [3] of 1947 ). The learned Munsif repelled these contentions. In an appeal by the defendant, learned Civil Judge upheld those findings. The suit was decreed by both the Courts below. The defenda