MALIK, CJ. :- These are four special appeals arising out of four suits. But they can be disposed of by one judgment as the point for decision is the same in all the four cases.

2. The plaintiffs, who are the landlords, filed four suits for ejectment, arrears of rent and also for mesne profits on 2-4-1946. These suits were decreed on 30-9-1946. Before filing the suits, notices for ejectment were given on 11-8-1945, and the tenants were required to vacate by 31-8-1945. The plaintiffs had also applied for permission to the District Magistrate and the permission to file the suits had been granted on 28-2-1946.

3. After the decrees, the defendants filed appeals. During the pendency of the appeals, an Ordinance known as U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Ordinance, 1946, (Ordinance No. 3 of 1946), was passed which came into force from 1-10-1946. The Ordinance was replaced by the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (Act No. 3 of 1947), which Act was passed on 31-3-1947, and was made retrospective and was to be deemed to come into force from 1-10-1946. The appeals came up for hearing on 24-1-1947, and though certain objections were taken, in the Court of appeal based on the Ordinance, the appeals failed and were dismissed and the decrees for ejectment passed by the trial Court were affirmed.

4. The plaintiffs filed applications for execution of the decrees and in the executing Court the defendants raised objections relying on S. 14 of the Act that the decrees were not executable. The objections were dismissed on 10-3-1947. The defendants filed execution appeals which were dismissed on 30-8-1947. Thereafter there were four execution second appeals filed in this Court, which were all allowed by a learned single Judge on 13-9-1950. The learned Judge, however, gave leave to file special appeals and these appeals were filed on behalf of the plaintiffs decree-holders.

5. The only point, for decision in these appeals is whether, by reason of the provisions of Ss. 14 and 15 of the Act, the decrees have now become unexecutable and the defendants cannot be ejected from the premises in their occupation.

6. On behalf of the decree-holders-appellants reliance is placed on S. 15 and it is urged that the cases are governed by S. 15 and decrees having been passed in favour of the appellants no objection can be raised now to the execution of the decrees. It is urged that the defendants had taken the plea in the Court of first appeal that no decree should be passed and had relied on the provisions of Ss. 7 and 8 of the Ordinance, but those objections were overruled or withdrawn and the defendants could not in the executing Court raise objections to the execution of the decrees.

7. Section 15 of Act 3 of 1947 is as follows :

"In all suits for eviction of a tenant from any accommodation pending on the date of the commencement of this Act, no decree for eviction shall be passed except on one or more of the grounds mentioned in S. 3".

Act 3 of 1947 as has been already said, was made retrospective and S. 1(3) provides that the Act shall be deemed to have come into force on 1-10-1946. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellants that an appeal is a continuation of a suit and as on 1-10-1946, or soon thereafter appeals were filed, the suits having been decided on 30-9-1946, S. 15 was applicable and no reliance can be placed by the judgment-debtors on S. 14. On behalf of the judgment-debtors, however, it is urged that the suits having been decided on 30-9-1946, the section applicable is S. 14 of the Act.

8. Section 14 is as follows :

"No decree for the eviction of a tenant from any accommodation passed before the date of commencement of this Act shall in so far as it relates to the eviction of such tenant, be executed against him as long as this Act remains in force, except on any of the grounds mentioned in S. 3 :

Provided that the tenant agrees to pay to the landlord reasonable, annual rent or the rent payable by him before the passi