JUDGMENT Malik, CJ. - In these three appeals the points referred to us is Whether, in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the U.P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisitions of Privileges) Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (No. 7 of 1950), these appeals should remain stayed for so long as the said Act remain in force. 2. The suits, out of which these appeals have arisen, Were filed u/s 175 of the U. P. Tenancy Act (No 17 of 1939) for ejectment of certain tenants by the same plaintiff. Section 175 of the U. P. Tenancy Act is as follows :- Subject to the provisions of Section 19, a non-occupancy tenant shall also be liable to ejectment on the application of the land-holder on any of the following grounds, namely :- (a) that he is a tenant holding from year to year. (b) that he is a tenant holding under a lease or for a period which has expired or Will expire before the end of the current agricultural year. 3. The suits Were decreed by the trial court, but on appeal the lower appellate court allowed the appeals and dismissed the suits. Second Appeals were filed in this Court ha which a learned Single Judge remitted certain issues. Before the lower appellate court an objection was taken that, by reason of the provisions of Section 10 of the U. P. Act No 7 of 1950, the hearing of the appeals should remain stayed. When the matter came up before a learned Single Judge he, as we have already said, referred the point for decision by a Bench. 4. Mr. Chaturvedi, on behalf of the appellant, has relied on Bindraban Katiar v. Ganga Ram 1940 A. W. E. (H C.) 383 : A. L. J. 573. Mahmud Husain Khan v. Radhe Kishn 1943 A. W. R. (H. C.) 263 : A. L. J. 542. and Sheo Rakhan Lal v. Sunder Lal AIR 1950 All 396 ., 16 Luck. 529 .and has urged that in interpreting the word 'suit' in Section 296 of the U. P. Tenancy Act (No. 17 of 1939) the view taken in the above cases Was that a suit did not include an appeal. and Sheo Rakhan Lal v. Sunder Lal AIR 1950 All 396 ., 16 Luck. 529 .and has urged that in interpreting the word 'suit' in Section 296 of the U. P. Tenancy Act (No. 17 of 1939) the view taken in the above cases Was that a suit did not include an appeal. Section (sic) of the U.P. Tenancy Act is as follows: A suit under any of the provisions of the Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 or the Oudh Rent Act, 1886, which is pending at the commencement of this Act or a decree under any of the provisions of either of these Acts, which has not been satisfied in full at such commencement shall be decided or executed, as the case may be, in accordance with the corresponding provision of this Act, and if there no such corresponding provision the proceedings relating to such suit or decree shall be quashed. 5. The object behind the section was clear and that was that the Act was not only made applicable to suits that had to be filed after the Act had come into force, but the Act was also made applicable to pending suits, and if the Act could not apply to a pending suit the suit was to be dismissed. The view taken by this Court was and that we may say with respect was the only view that could possibly be taken that in appeal the courts have primarily to find out whether the decision of the lower court was correct and it should pass a decree which the lower court should have passed. In the absence of any express provisions in Section 296 making the Act applicable to cases already decided by the lower courts it could not be urged that, by reason of the provisions of that Section, in the court of appeal the law applicable was to be different from the law under which the suits were decided by the lower courts. 6. The U. P. Act No. 7 of 1950 replaces an old Act, the U.P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act (No. 10 of 1949). The latter Act was passed so as to facilitate the abolition of zamindari and to provide for payment by tenants of what is known as Bhumidari dues and to provide for reduction of rent and protection from ejectment and from certain other consequences connected therewith. The latter Act was passed so as to facilitate the abolition of zamindari and to provide for payment by tenants of what is known as Bhumidari dues and to provide for reduction of rent and protection from ejectment and from certain other consequences connected therewith. The tenants in occupation of land were permitted to pay ten times the rent so that they might acquire Bhumidari rights and the money might be utilised in paying compensation to the zamindars. It would have led to great confusion if on the one side a tenant had paid ten times the rent and acquired Bhumidari rights and on the other he was ejected and some other tenant put in his place. The main object, therefore, behind the Act was that a tenant in possession should remain in occupation of the tenancy till the matters relating to acquisition of zamindari were finally decided. Act No. 10 of 1949 was amended by an Ordinance No. 3 of 1950 which was replaced by Act No. 7 of 1950. Section 10 of this Act is as follows:- Stay of suits, applications and proceedings--Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, all suits, applications or proceedings of the category specified in the Schedule pending on the date of the commencement of this Act or which may hereafter be instituted presented or commenced shall be and remain stayed for so long as this Act remains in force; 7. In the Schedule Section 175 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1989; is mentioned. We are inclined to the view that an appeal may be deemed to be a continuation of a suit and, in any case, the words "suit, applications and proceedings" appear to us, in view of the object behind the Act, to be wide enough to include appeals in suits u/s 175. Under a similar Act, U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act No. 3 of 1947, when the question of ejectment of a tenant from a house arose in the case of Niranjan Lal Bhargava v. Mst. Ram Kali Devi (4) this Court, following two decisions of the Federal Court mentioned therein held that the word 'suit' in Section, 15 of that Act included an appeal which was merely a continuation of a suit. Ram Kali Devi (4) this Court, following two decisions of the Federal Court mentioned therein held that the word 'suit' in Section, 15 of that Act included an appeal which was merely a continuation of a suit. We are, therefore of the opinion that these appeals should remain stayed in accordance with the pro-visions of Section 10 of: Act 7 of 1950. 8. Even if we were of the view that the word 'suit' in Section 10 of this Act was not wide enough to cover an appeal it appears to be an unnecessary waste of time to hear appeals and to pass decrees which cannot be executed by reason of the pro-visions of The Act. Learned Counsel has admitted that the decrees for ejectment cannot be executed. It appears to be, therefore, wholly unnecessary to consider these appeals when this Act may be replaced by other legislation which may ultimately make the decrees nugatory or useless. In that view also these appeals should remain stayed till the repeal of Act No. 7 of 1950, after which these cases may be listed for disposal.