JUDGMENT Bind Bansi Prasad, J. - This is a decree holder's appeal from an order passed by the learned Civil Judge of Bareilly by which he disallowed the application for the execution of a decree for ejectment of the judgment-debtor from a shop. Briefly the facts are as follows; - The plaintiff, Sheo Prasad, is the owner of a shop in the city of Bareilly. He and his brother, Darbari Lal, who is judgment debtor started business in partnership in Ghee, in the shop in dispute. The rent for the shop was admittedly credited to the decree-holder, Sheo Prasad, in June 1945, the partnership was dissolved by serving a notice, and litigation about rendition of accounts of that partnership is still pending. In the course of that litigation the plaintiff applied to the Civil Judge to direct the defendant to vacate his shop. The learned Civil Judge declined to give such a direction on the ground that the shop was not in dispute. The plaintiff sent a telegram followed by a notice to the defendant requiring the defendant to vacate the shop. Upon the defendant's failure to vacate the shop the suit was instituted on the 16th December, 1945. A perusal of the plaint will show that the defendant was treated by the plaintiff as a Tank trespasser. The suit was framed as one by an owner against a trespasser for ejectment and Court-fee was paid accordingly. A sum of rupees one hundred was asked for, not as arrears of rent but as mens profits. 2. One of the issues raised in the suit was "whether the position of the defendant was that of a trespasser or a tenant." 3. Hightly or wronglythe learned himself that the defendant was a trespasser and not a tenant and decreed the suit on the 26th September, 1946. There was no appeal and that decree became final. 4. When the plaintiff applied for the execution of the decree the defendant contended that having regard to the provisions of Section 14 of the U. P. "Temporary" Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, the decree for ejectment could not be executed. There was no appeal and that decree became final. 4. When the plaintiff applied for the execution of the decree the defendant contended that having regard to the provisions of Section 14 of the U. P. "Temporary" Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, the decree for ejectment could not be executed. That section provides as follows:- No decree for the eviction of tenant from any accomodation passed before the date of commencement of this Act shall in so far as it relates to the evicition of such tenant, be executed against him as long as this Act remains in force, except on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 3. Provided that the tenant agrees to pay to the landlord "reasonable annual rent" or the rent payable by him before the passing of the decree, whichever is higher. 5. The trial Court dismissed the Cojection. In appeal the learned Civil Judge held that in view of Section 14 quoted (sic) in hows above - the decree was (sic) assent able. He therefore, passed an order to the following effect:- It in, therefore, ordered that subject to the giving of an undertaking by the judgment debtor in writing within a period of seven days from today to pay (sic) accordance with the proviso to (sic) 14 of Act III of 1947 this appeal be allowed with, costs failing which it shall stand dismissed with costs. 6. Against this order the decree-holder (sic) in appeal. (sic) first contention raised is that (sic) 14 applies only when the decree (sic) eviction of a tenant. But as the suit in which the decree under attention was passed was not against a tenant but against a trespasser the section is not applicable. The learned Civil Judge held that the word "tenant" in that section means not only a person who occupies the position of a tenant on the date of the suit, but also a person who comes in possession of the accommodation as a tenant. In this view of the case he held that Section 11 applies to the present case, the same argument has been urged in this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. In this view of the case he held that Section 11 applies to the present case, the same argument has been urged in this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. There is force in the stand taken by the learned Civil Judge but the difficulty (sic) present case is the finding of the (sic) Munsif in his judgment dated the 26th September 1946, by which he held that the position of the defendant was that of a trespasser. It may be that the finding was not correct but this is a matter with which we are not concerned in the present proceeding. It was a finding duly arrived at and the defendant did not question it in appeal. We must (sic) the position as found by the (sic) Munsif in his judgment dated the 26th September, 1946. 8. The suit against the judgment-debtor was framed as against a trespasser, Court fee was paid accordingly, and he was held by the trial Court as a trespasser. In the present case, therefore, it is not open to him to contained that on the date date of the suit he was holding over as a tenant or that he occupied the position of a tenant. Section 14 is, there, fore, not applicable, because it was not a suit against a tenant. The view taken by the learned Civil Judge is, in my view, incorrect. 9. I succeeds and it is hereby allowed with costs trial Court is restored. The execution will leave to appeal under the Letters Patent is refused.