MUKERJI, J. :- This is a reference to a Full Bench by a Bench of which one of us was a member on the ground that there was a conflict in this Court between two decisions, one reported in Raja Ram v. Madhu Prasad, 1954 All LJ 195 : (AIR 1954 All 592) and the other in Sharafat Ullah Khan v. Raja Udairaj Singh AIR 1959 All 416. In the latter decision the learned Judges, Beg and Tandon, JJ. doubted the correctness of the decision in 1954 All LJ 195 : (AIR 1954 All 592) on the ground that they were unable to hold that sections 3, 14 and 15 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, had the effect of conferring retrospective operation on an Amending Act. Before we fully comprehend the scope of the controversy it is necessary to know a few facts of the case : this was also necessary because the whole case was referred for decision to the Full Bench.

2. The plaintiff in this case filed a suit for the ejectment of the defendants on the ground that he required the accommodation which was a house, for himself. The defendants, who were father and son, had executed a rent note in plaintiff's favour in respect of the accommodation on the 3rd January, 1941, whereby they had taken the accommodation on a monthly rent of Rs. 4/-.

3. On the 9th September, 1946, the plaintiff served the defendants with a notice to quit the premises by the 22nd October, 1946 and also to pay up the arrears which had accrued by that date in respect of the premises

4. The defendants contended inter alia in defence that the notice was bad and that they had sent a sum of Rs. 23/1/, after deducting a sum of As. 15/- which they had spent on the repairs of the premises, to the plaintiff as rent due for the six months for which arrears of rent were claimed by the plaintiff which amount the plaintiff had unjustifiably refused to accept. The defendants also controverted the plaintiff's claim that he required the premises to satisfy a personal need.

5. The suit was decreed by the trial court for arrears only and that to the extent of Rs 24. The plaintiff's claim for ejectment was dismissed. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff and the learned Civil Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiff's suit in its entirety. The learned Civil Judge repelled the contention raised on behalf of the defendants that their ejectment was protected by the provisions of Act III of 1947. The learned Civil Judge found against the defendants on the question of the validity and the service of the notice. The learned Judge below also seemed to affirm that the plaintiff had failed to establish the fact that he required the accommodation to meet his personal need.

6. A second appeal was preferred to this Court by the defendants and the only point of any substance urged before the learned single Judge was that in view of a notification made by the State Government on the 5th of March, 1949, published in the Gazette of that date, Act III of 1947, namely, the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, became applicable to the Town Area of Kaimganj wherein the disputed accommodation lay and a suit for ejectment could not succeed. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that the bar could be raised even in second appeal.

7. The learned single Judge upheld the decision of the lower appellate court and dismissed the second appeal, but granted leave to appeal to a Bench. As we pointed out earlier, the only question of any substance which was agitated before the learned single Judge on behalf of the defendant-appellants was that even though on the date of the decree of the lower appellate court, Act III of 1947 did not apply to the area in which the property in dispute was situate, the Act having been since extended by the notification dated the 5th March, 1949, to the Town Area of Kaimganj the defendant-appellants were entitled to protection against ejectment. The learned single Judge repelled the contention of the appellants holding, in effect, that even thou