JUDGMENT

1. This is a defendant's appeal under Section 12(2), Oudh Courts Act, against the appellate decree of a learned Single Judge of this Court. The appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent which has been decreed for Kharif 1341 F., 1342 F. and 1343 F. One of the points arising in the appeal was whether rents accruing before Eabi 1344 Fasli could be realized under the U.P. Stayed Arrears of Kent (Remission) Act, 18 of 1939, read with the U, P. Stay of Proceedings (Revenue Courts) Act, 4 of 1937. The learned Single Judge of this Court has taken the view that in order to entitle the tenants to the benefit of Act 18 of 1939 it was necessary that the Court should have stayed suits for rents. This view has been overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Hari Saran Das v. Dhani Ram, A.I.R. 1941 Oudh 273. It was held there that where it is provided by the T.P. Stay of Proceedings Act that all suits shall be stayed, all such suits are automatically stayed and no order of the Court is necessary. Upon this view, therefore, the defendant-appellant is entitled to succeed and the suit must be dismissed against him.

2. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent concedes this. He has, however, raised a preliminary objection to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that the learned single Judge had no jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal under Section 12(2), Oudh Courts Act, and this appeal is, therefore, incompetent. The argument in a nutshell is that appeals to the Chief Court are expressly provided in rent oases under Sections 265 and 269, U.P. Tenancy Act, (17 of 1939). Section 265 of the Act allows an appeal to the District Judge from the decree of an Assistant Collector of the first class or of a Collector in certain suits mentioned therein. The same section allows an appeal to the Chief Court in cases where the value of the subject-matter exceeds Rs. 5000. Section 269 of the Act allows a second appeal to the Chief Court from the appellate decree of a District Judge on any of the grounds specified in Section 100, Civil P.C. Section 263, Tenancy Act, lays down that no appeal shall lie from any decree or order passed by any Court under this Act, except as provided in this Act. It is argued on the strength of these sections that although the U.P. Tenancy Act, provides for a second appeal in rent cases to the Chief Court it debars a further appeal by reason of the provisions of Section 263 of the Act so that no further appeal in a rent case can lie under Section 12(2), Oudh Court Act. In support of this contention, reference is also made to Sections 8 and 9, Oudh Courts Act, which lay down that the Chief Court shall be the highest civil Court of appeal and revision and the highest Court of criminal appeal and revision. There is no section in the Oudh Courts Act which lays down that the Chief Court is the highest Rent Court of appeal and revision. We are of opinion that the preliminary objection has no force and must be overruled.

Section 12(2), Oudh Courts Act, runs thus:

Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, contained in any enactment for the time being in force an appeal from any appellate decree made by a single Judge of the Chief Court shall lie to a Bench consisting of two other Judges of the Chief Court, if the Judge who made the decree declares that the case is a fit one for appeal.

3. It is clear from the provisions of this section that a third appeal is provided from any appellate decree made by a single Judge of the Chief Court to a Bench of two Judges provided that the Judge has certified the case to be a fit one for appeal. It is also clear that this right of appeal is conferred upon a Bench of two Judges (subject, however, to the grant of a certificate by the single Judge) "notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, contained in any enactment for the time being in force." A second rent appeal lies and is decided by a single Judge only in certain cases in which he has jurisdiction as regards the valu