JUDGMENT S. ROY, J. In this application the defendant no.1 has challenged the legality of the order dated 24.1.1978 passed in Title Suit No. 132 of 1973 by which the Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh has allowed the application filed under Section 13 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 1977 (1977 Act). 2. The suit was filed on 5.9.1973 by opposite party no. 11 for eviction of the petitioner from the suit building which is situated in the Ramgarh Cantonment. 3. It appears that an application under section 11A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (1947 Act) filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 and 2, was allowed by the order dated 28.2.1977 but the same was set aside in Civil Revision No. 49 of 1977 (R) following the decisions in the case of (Dr.) Shailendra Nath Sahu V. Dr. Gita Mazumdar, and the case of Swarna Sahu V. Most. Mariam, with a direction that the application filed under section 11A of 1947 Act shall be treated as if it was an application under section 13 of 1977 Act From the order of that case, it further appears that an objection was also taken regarding the maintainability of the application as the suit property was situated in Ramgarh Cantonment to which neither 1947 Act nor 1977 Act applies. This question was left open in the previous application. 4. Mr. Debi Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in the Schedule under Section 1(2) of Act 1947 and also 1977 Act the area comprised within Ramgarh cantonment has been specifically excluded from the application of these Acts. He urged that since these Acts were not applicable to that area, no application under section 13 of 1977 Act was maintainable. Mr. Prasad attacked the order also on the ground that as opposite party no. 2 was added as plaintiff no. 2 on 12.11.1976 on the basis of a transfer during the pendency of the suit of the property in suit, no direction can be made for depositing the rent in favour of opposite party no. 2 prior to the date of his adding as a plaintiff and also on the ground that the petitioner never attorned plaintiff no. 2 as his landlord. 5. I will dispose of the second submission of Mr. Prasad first. 2 prior to the date of his adding as a plaintiff and also on the ground that the petitioner never attorned plaintiff no. 2 as his landlord. 5. I will dispose of the second submission of Mr. Prasad first. As noticed above in Civil Revision No. 49 of 1977 (R) the application filed under section 11A of 1947 Act was directed to be treated as an application under section 13 of Act 1977. It has been admitted at the Bar that the said application was filed on behalf of opposite party no.1. For the said reasons, the second objection of Mr. Prasad is, therefore, not available in this application. Moreover, he has not contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and opposite party No.1. 6. From the Schedule under section 1(2) of 1947 Act it appears that the Act was made applicable to Ramgarh excluding the local areas comprised within the Ramgarh Cantonment. Mr. Prasad submitted that in view of this exclusion the Act did not apply. 7. Mr. Kishore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party, submitted that by a notification of the Central Government issued under section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent control laws) Act, 1957, (Act 46 of 1957) certain sections of 1947 Act was modified including section 1(2) and the modified 1947 Act was made applicable to Ramgarh Cantonment. He, therefore, urged that since 1947 Act applied, the order of the court below was not bad in law. Mr. Prasad challenged the submission of Mr. Kishore by submitting that the Central Government had no jurisdiction to modify the State Act, and therefore the notification of the Central Government was ultra vires Further, by notification, 1947 Act was made applicable with modification to Ramgarh cantonment and as Act 1947 is no more available the notification has lapsed. 8. There is on dispute that the Central Government by notification issued under section 3 of the Cantonment Act 1924 declared a particular area in Ramgarh to be a Cantonment and the building is situated within the local limits of Ramgarh Cantonment. The relevant portion of the notification issued by the Central Government under section 3 of Act 46 of Act 1957 reads as follows:- "S.R.O. 103 In exercise of the power conferred by section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws). The relevant portion of the notification issued by the Central Government under section 3 of Act 46 of Act 1957 reads as follows:- "S.R.O. 103 In exercise of the power conferred by section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws). Act 1957 (Act 46 of 1957) the Central Government hereby extends to the Cantonments in the State of Bihar, the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 Bihar Act 3 of 1947) as inforce in the State of Bihar on the date of this notification with the following modifications namely. In the said Act : 1. In section 1 For sub-Section (2), the following sub section shall be substituted namely: "(2) it applied to the areas declared to be cantonment under section 3 of the Cantonment Act 1924 (Act 2 of 1924) in the State of Bihar." The Supreme Court in the case of Indu, Bhusan Bose Vrs. Ramsundari Devi, held that in view of entry 3 of List I of vii schedule of the Constitution of India the Parliament has exclusive power to make laws on the subject or relationship between land ford and tenant so far it arises in respect or house accommodation situated in Cantonment areas and not the State Legislatures. Therefore, the legislative power on this subject for Ramgarh Cantonment is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament. 9. Instead of legislating separately for different cantonments situated within different States having different Rent Control Acts, the Parliament enacted Act 46 of 1957. Section 3 of which empowers the Central Government to extend by notification in Official Gazette enactment relating to the control or rent and regulations of the house accommodation of that State in which the cantonment is situated. The relevant portion of that section, with which we are concerned in this case, reads as follows:- “3. The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette extend to any cantonment with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit, any enactment relating to the control of rent and regulation of house accommodations which is in force on the date of the notification in the State in which the cantonment is situated.” 10. The contention of Mr. Prasad is that by the notification the Central Government has modified section 1(2) of Act 1947, the relvant portion of which has been quoted above. The contention of Mr. Prasad is that by the notification the Central Government has modified section 1(2) of Act 1947, the relvant portion of which has been quoted above. That Act being an Act passed by Bihar State Legislature, Mr. Prasad urged, the Central Government has no power to modify. It is the State Legislature who may do it. 11. Section 3 of Act 46 of 1957 empowers the Central Government to extend the State rent law with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit. The State Rent Law so modified under Act 46 of 1957 cannot be considered to be a Central Government enactment. It will amount to adoption of the State Rent Law with modifications and applying the same to a Cantonment. The modifications so made in Act 1947 have no application to any area outside a Cantonment. The effect of the notification is the extension of State Rent Law by adoption. In the present case the modification in Section 1(2) of Act 1947 was made by the Central Government in exercise of delegated legislative function and Act 1947 as modified by the Central Government shall apply to Ramgarh Cantonment. No decision contrary to the view taken by me has been brought to my notice. For the reasons stated above, it must be held that Act 1947 applied to the area in question. 12. Mr. Prasad contended that even if Act 1947 applied to Ramgarh Cantonment, no notification was issued by the Central Government under section 3 of Act 46 of 1957 extending 1977 Act to Ramgarh Cantonment. He, therefore, urged that the court below could not have passed the order in 1978 when 1947 Act had lapsed. 13. In my opinion, there is no merit in this submission also. The effect of expiry of 1947 Act to proceedings taken out when that Act was in force came up for consideration before a Bench of this court in the case of Ahmad Raza Khan V. Rhola Prasad. It was held in that case that since the suit has been filed when 1947 Act was in force it will be continued under that Act and will not affect any liability incurred under that Act. It was held in that case that since the suit has been filed when 1947 Act was in force it will be continued under that Act and will not affect any liability incurred under that Act. There is no dispute that the suit was filed when 1947 Act was in force and in view of the Bench decision, it must be held that as the petitioner had incurred the liability under that Act the same is not affected by the expiry of that Act. 14. It the result, there is no merit in the application and that same is dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.