JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - The Appellant is the judgment-debtor and the Respondents are decree-holders. The decree-holders obtained an order for eviction of the Appellant u/s 7(2) of the Orissa House Rent Control Act (Orissa Act XXXI of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the 1958 Act). The order was put into execution in the Court of the Munsif u/s 13 of the same Act. An objection was raised that an order u/s 7(2) of the 1958 Act was not executable u/s 13. The objection was over-ruled by the two Courts below. Against that order the judgment-debtor has filed this Miscellaneous Appeal u/s 47 Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Mr. G.B. Mohanty raises the idential contention here that an order u/s 7(2) of the 1958 Act is not executable before the Munsif u/s 13 of the same Act. Section 7 lays down the conditions under which a tenant can be ejected. The section has been divided into two Sub-sections. Under Sub-section (1) a number of conditions have been enumerated under which a tenant can be evicted. Section 7(2) of the 1958 Act runs thus: The landlord may subject to the provisions of this Act, apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put him in possession of the house, if he requires the house in good faith for the occupation or use of himself, any member of his family or of any person or persons for whose benefit the house is held by him. Section 13 of the 1958 Act lays down that the order of the Controller made under Sub-section (1) of Section 7 directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the house, shall be deemed to be a decree and executable as such in the Court of the Munsif within whose jurisdiction the house is situate. It would be worth-while to note that Section 13 is completely silent as to an order u/s 7(2) being a decree and executable through the Munsif. The Legislature was quite aware that Section 7(2) provided as much for eviction as Section 7(1). The language of Section 13 being clear, any argument that an order u/s 7(2) is a decree and executable through the Munsif would be contrary to the plain meaning of the words used in section la. In my view, the contrary argument is wholly untenable. 3. Mr. The language of Section 13 being clear, any argument that an order u/s 7(2) is a decree and executable through the Munsif would be contrary to the plain meaning of the words used in section la. In my view, the contrary argument is wholly untenable. 3. Mr. B.B. Mohanty however places reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Parfulla Kumar Das Vs. House Rent Controller and Others. This decision has been overruled by the Supreme Court on another point which is not relevant here. In this case Justice R.K. Das expressed himself thus: Though there is no express provision as to the nature of the order that the Controller will pass in a case governed by Sub-section (2) of Section 7, yet a reasonable construction may be drawn from the context and title of those sections that the order passed by the Controller u/s 7(2) will be covered u/s 7(1) of the Act. This observation was obiter and did not arise for determination in that case. No order u/s 7(2) of the 1958 Act was being executed in that case. The learned Chief Justice, who was the other member of the Division Bench, did not subscribe to such a view and his judgment does not contain any discussion on this point. The observation of Justice R.K. Das being obiter and the point not having arisen in the case, the observation made therein has no binding effect of a Division Bench decision. I am clearly of opinion that the Division Bench decision does not stand in my way in taking an independent view as has already been expressed. 4. On the view already expressed by me, the judgments of the Courts below cannot be supported, and the appeal must be allowed. 5. The further question for consideration however is whether the order of eviction dated 12.9.1963 is still executable. Mr. G.B. Mohanty on the very first day of his argument advanced a fantastic contention that the 1958 Act and Orissa Act 4 of 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 1968 Act) were both in the field, and as the 1958 Act bad been extended till 1-1-1970 the case would be governed by the 1958 Act. The matter had to be closely examined and the case bad to be further heard in view of the apparent fantastic character of that contention. The matter had to be closely examined and the case bad to be further heard in view of the apparent fantastic character of that contention. To dispel such argument to be advanced in future, it would be profitable to examine this point which Mr. G.B. Mohanty faisly conceded subsequently and clarify the legal position. 6. The 1958 Act was initially for a period of 5 years. By Orissa Act 30 of 1963, it was amended before its expiry and the 1958 Act was to remain in force for a period of 8 years from the date of its commencement which was on 1-1-1959. In normal course the life of this Act would have expired on 1-1-1967. By Orissa Ordinance No. 5 of 1966 promulgated by the Governor on 28-12-1966 the life of the 1958 Act was further extended to 11 years. This Ordinance was laid before the Legislative Assembly, Orissa, when the Assembly first met after the Ordinance on 23-3-1967 by virtue of the provisions under Article 213 of the Constitution. The Ordinance was converted into Act 7 of 1967 and it received the assent of the President on 29-4-1967. This Act was however published late in the Orissa. Gazette, (Extraordinary) dated 19-5-1967. According to Section 3(1)(ii) of the Orissa General Clauses Act, 1937 this Act ought to have come into operation only from the date on which the President's assent was published in the Gazette, that is, 19.5.1967. But the Orissa Ordinance No. 5 of 1966 which extended the life of the 1958 Act from 8 years to 11 years ceased to operate at the expiration of 6 weeks from the re-assembly of the Legislature. 10 other words, the Ordinance expired on 4-5-1967. So the 1958 Act expired ora that day. When the principal Act of 1958 expired on 4-5-1967, the Amending Act 7 of 1967 which was published in the Orissa Gazette on 19-5-1967 became infructuous and could not come into operation. The result was that there was no House Rent Control Act in Orissa after 4-5-1967. To save the aforesaid situation, the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (Orissa Act 4 of 1968) was passed by the State Legislature and it received the assent of the President on 17-2-1968. It was published in the Orissa Gazette (Extraordinary) on 4-3-1968. The result was that there was no House Rent Control Act in Orissa after 4-5-1967. To save the aforesaid situation, the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (Orissa Act 4 of 1968) was passed by the State Legislature and it received the assent of the President on 17-2-1968. It was published in the Orissa Gazette (Extraordinary) on 4-3-1968. This Act has been given retrospective operation, in the area in which the 1958 Act was in force, from 4-5-1967, by virtue of Section 1(3). The result therefore is that the Orissa Act 4 of 1968 is in force with effect from 4-5-1967. 7. Section 22 of the 1968 Act, so far as relevant, runs thus: 22. Notwithstanding the expiration of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1958 (a) anything done, any action taken, any order, appointment or rules made or any notification issued in exercise of or in purported exercise of any power conferred by or under the said Act; and (b) any proceedings instituted thereunder, shall be deemed to have been done, taken, made or issued in exercise of the powers conferred by or under this act.... As a result of this saving clause, the order dated 12-9-1953 passed by the appellate Court in the House Rent Control case u/s 7(2) of the 1958 Act shall be deemed to be an order passed u/s 7(4) of the 1968 Act. 8. Section 15 of the 1968 Act provides that the order of the Controller made u/s 7 directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the house, shall be deemed to be a decree and shall be executable as such in the Court of the Munsif within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the house is situate. It would be noticed that the Legislature became aware of the difficulty in Section 13 of the 1958 Act and remedied the situation by making provision in Section 15 of the 1968 Act that all orders of eviction u/s 7 are to be deemed as decrees and would be executable in the Court of the Munsif. The position that would emerge now is that the order of the House Rent Controller passed on 12-9-1963 would be executable in the Court of the Munsif u/s 15 of the 1968 Act. The decree-holder must therefore file a fresh execution case subject to any question of limitation to be argued there. 9. The position that would emerge now is that the order of the House Rent Controller passed on 12-9-1963 would be executable in the Court of the Munsif u/s 15 of the 1968 Act. The decree-holder must therefore file a fresh execution case subject to any question of limitation to be argued there. 9. In the result, the orders of the Courts below are set aside and the Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. In the circumstances parties to bear this own costs throughout. Final Result : Allowed