MALIK, CJ.:-

This case has been referred to us by a Bench for reconsideration of certain decisions of this Court referred to in the referring order.

2. The facts of the case are that a suit No.366 of 1944 was filed by the respondent, Pearey Lal, for ejectment of the appellant from house No.395/417 situate in Kaserat Bazar, Tajganj, Agra, and for arrears of rent due. The suit was decreed on 12-1-1945. The defendant filed an appeal Civil Appeal No.35 of 1945-and on 28-1-1946, the lower appellate Court affirmed the decree for ejectment but dismissed the claim for arrears of rent. A rider was added in the decree that the decree-holder will not be entitled to execute the decree for ejectment without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate.

This was by reason of the provisions of the Defence of India Rules, R.81(2) (bb) (ii), which was as follows:

"81(2). The Central Government or the Provincial Government, so far as appears to it to be necessary or expedient for securing the defence of British India or the efficient prosecution of the war, or for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community, may by order provide-

………. ………… ………. ………. ………………..

(bb) for regulating the letting and sub-letting of any accommodation or class of accommodation, whether residential or non-residential, whether furnished or unfurnished and whether with or without board, and in particular,-

……….. …………… …………… …………. …………..

(ii) for preventing the eviction of tenants and sub-tenants from such accommodation in specified circumstances and;"

3. The application for execution of the decree was made in January, 1947, but without the sanction of the District Magistrate, and in the execution application it was claimed that the landlord applicant wanted the house for his own bona fide use. On 10-7-1947, however, the decree-holder amended the application for execution and claimed that the tenant had misused the premises and had brought it to non-residential use by converting it into a Bhatti. On 17-7-1947, the decree-holder obtained the permission of the District Magistrate for the eviction of the tenant. In the meantime the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act (3 of 1947) was passed. It received the assent of the Governor-General on 28-2-1947, and was published in the U.P. Gazette Extraordinary, dated 1-3-1947. It was, however, provided in the Act that it would be deemed to have come into force on 1-10-1946.

4. An objection was taken to the execution of the decree on the ground that S.14 of the Act applied and the decree for eviction could not be executed except on one of the grounds mentioned in S.3. This objection was allowed by the executing Court and the execution application was dismissed. On appeal, however, the lower appellate Court reversed the decision of the executing Court.

5. Two grounds have been urged by learned counsel for the appellant:

1. that the District Magistrates permission could not be considered to be a ground mentioned in S.3 of the Act; and

2. that in any case the permission of the District Magistrate should have been obtained before the application for execution was filed.

6. A number of Division Bench cases of this Court were cited before us. In all of them the same view was taken and there is no conflict of opinion. The cases cited are - Raj Narain v. Sita Ram, AIR 1952 All 584 (A); - Manzoor Ali Usmani v. Mt. Lal Devi, AIR 1951 All 396 (B); - Sunder Lal v. Mohammad Ishaq, AIR 1954 All 111 (C) and - Mohan Lal v. Lala Kanwar Sen, AIR 1954 All 480 (D).

7. The first point has been considered at some length in - Sunder Lals case (C) and it is not, therefore, necessary for us to repeat what has been said there. We agree that the permission of the District Magistrate can be treated as an additional ground for filing a suit for eviction under S.3 of the Act. If S.3 is redrafted as suggested in - Sunder Lals case (C), ground (g) after the grounds (a) to (f) can be added in these term