Gulab C. Gupta, J.-l. This is tenant's appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 C.P.C. challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 15-1-86 passed by the II A D.J. to the Court of District Judge, Bhopal, in Civil Appeal No.31.A/84 permitting the respondent to withdraw her suit with permission to file fresh proceedings before the Rent Controlling authority.

2. It appears that the respondent filed her civil suit No. 268/82 before the VII Civil Judge, Class II, Bhopal praying for eviction of the appellant on the ground that the suit premises were required by her for her bona fide requirements as covered u/s 12 (1) (e) of the M P. Accommodation Control Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant resisted the suit and denied the existence of bona fide requirements. During the pendency of the said suit M.P. Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act, 1983 was brought into force. This Amending Act provided for an alternative forum for deciding ejectment cases based on bona fide requirements and authorised the Rent Controlling Authority to entertain such cases and deal with them in a summary manner provided in the said Act. The order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority subject to the revision in the High Court u/s 23-E of the Act, was made final. This view forum in so far as pending suits were concerned, was optional at the wish of the landlord. Sec. 12 of this Amending Act which is relevant for the purpose reads as under :-

"12. (I) Subject to sub-section (2) all suits filed by landlords for eviction of tenantsion the grounds of "bona fide" requirement of accommodation for residential or non-residential purpose and pending on this dale of commencement of this Act shall, unless the landlord withdraws the same in relation to such relief be beard, proceeded with and disposed of by the Civil Courts as if this Act has not been passed.

(2) Any landlord seeking to evict the tenant exclusively on the grounds of "bona fide" requirement of accommodation u/s 23-A of - the Principal Act, may, if he has already proceeded against the tenant under clause (e) or clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Principal Act as it existed prior 10 the commencement of this Act, withdraw the suit in relation to said grounds with leave of Court and proceed against the tenant in accordance with section 23-A of the Principal Act."

A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that it applied to all suits filed by landlords before the commencement of this Amending Act and pending on the date of its commencement. Sub-section (1) of the aforesaid section permitted the civil Court where such a suit was pending to hear and decide the suit as if this Act" as not passed unless the landlord withdraws the same. Sub-section (2) of the aforesaid provision with which were directly concern in this appeal permitted the landlord to withdraw the suit with the leave of the Court and proceed against the tenant before the Rent Controlling Authority u/s 23-A of the Act.

3. It is common ground that the respondent/landlord did not withdraw the suit even though she was entitled to do so The evidence in the case was recorded after the Amendment Act had come into force and ultimately by judgment and decree dated 24-1-84 the trial Court dismissed the suit. Apparently the trial Court proceeded with this suit as if the Amendment Act of 1983 had not come into force. The respondent filed an appeal against the judgment and decree before the II A.D.J. to the Court of the Distt. Judge. Bhopal where it was the subject-matter of Appeal No.1-A/84 On 11-4-85 the respondent filed an application under O.23 R.1 C.P.C. read with section 12 (2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act, 1983 seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to start proceedings before the Rent Controlling Authority u/s 23-A of the Act. This application was opposed by the appellant mainly on the ground that Sec. 12 (2) of the Amending Act does not apply at the stage of a