ORDER : 1. These matters come before us for clarification of the order passed by us sitting with Bhagwati, CJ, on April, 23. 1986. A bench consisting of Hon'ble A.P. Sen, A. Varadarajan and V. Balakrishna Eradi, JJ passed the following order on November 9, 1983 : "After hearing the counsel for both the parties at some length, it seems to us that the correctness of the decision in Firms Amar Nath Bashesh Das v. Tek Chand, 1972 (3) SCR 922 , is open to doubt. It appears that the interpretation placed by the Court as to the scope and effect of the exemption in Section 3 of the East I Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1943, which is in pari-materia with Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. (as extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh) with which we are concerned in this appeal, requires re-consideration. We do feel that the second part of the impugned notification issued by the Chief Commissioner. Chandigarh dated September 24, 1974, under Section 3 of the Act. in effect, permits the Civil Courts to pass decrees in suits for ejectment of tenants instituted by the landlords even after the expiry of the period of exemption, contrary to the statutory bar contained in Section 13 of the Act and therefore it could not be upheld. Let the papers he laid before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for placing the matter before a larger bench." 2. The effect of this order is to refer the question involved in the appeal to a bench of Five Judges. It was after this a mention was made before us, sitting with Bhagwati, CT, on April 23, 1986, when we passed the following order : "Reference to a three-Judge bench made by this Court on 9.11.1983 is in respect of the suit for ejectment of tenants instituted by the landlord after the expiry of the period of exemption and does not cover cases where suits were instituted by the landlord prior to the expiry of the period of exemption but decree was passed subsequent to the period of exemption. Hence all cases where suits for ejectment of tenants were instituted by the landlord after the expiry of the period of exemption shall be the subject matter of the reference to the larger bench. Hence all cases where suits for ejectment of tenants were instituted by the landlord after the expiry of the period of exemption shall be the subject matter of the reference to the larger bench. But the appeals and suits for ejectment of tenants instituted by the landlord prior to the expiry period of exemption shall not form part of the reference but these will be placed on board before us on 30.4. 1986." 3. In this order we made it clear that the reference to a larger bench (mistakenly shown as three-Judges) was only in respect of suits for 10 ejectment of tenants instituted by the landlord after the expiry of the period of exemption and does not cover cases where suits were instituted by the landlord prior to the expiry of the period of exemption but wherein decree was passed subsequent to the period of exemption. 4. But when the matter came up before us again on April 30, 1986. we clarified the order further in the following terms : "We have by our order dated 9.1 1.83 disposed of the question raised in regard to the applicability of the exemption against the petitioner. But since there are other points raised in the appeal we 21 would like to make it clear that those points are not covered by the order made by us and so far as those points are concerned, the appeal may be placed on board for hearing and final disposal on 15th July, 1986, subject to part-heard." 5. We find that mention was made before another bench regarding 2. these matters and the following orders were passed on April 23, 1937, by a bench consisting of Hon'ble Ranganath Misra and G.L. Oza, JJ: "When these cases were called out, objections were raised as to the scope of the order dated 23 4.1986 by a three-judges bench presided 3 over by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Mr. Justice P.N. Bhagwati who was presiding over that bench has since retired. But other two judges are available and it is appropriate that the matter is first listed for clarification of the order of 23.4.1986 as to in which cases it was intended that the reference to larger bench will survive. 2 Since batch of appeals are awaiting disposal, we suggest that the learned two-judges may meet on 28th April, 1987, to give the clarification. 2 Since batch of appeals are awaiting disposal, we suggest that the learned two-judges may meet on 28th April, 1987, to give the clarification. While doing so, learned judges may kindly take into consideration the order of 30th April, 1957, also. Miss Asha Jain, learned counsel appearing in C.A. No. 399,/82 stated that this appeal is not identical to the other matters listed today. The Court directed that the office will check up. If it is so, the matter may be de-linked from the batch." 6. In Firm Amar Nath v. Tek Chand, 1972 (3) SCR 922 , referred to above, a three-Judges bench of this Court held as follows at page 928 : "It is clear in our minds, as it was to the High Court that under clause (h) the filing of the suit within the period of exemption is the only condition that is necessary to satisfy one of the requirements of the exemption, the other requirement being the passing of the decree in respect of which no time has been prescribed. If the decree, as contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant, has to be obtained within the period of five years, there was no need to specify that the suit has to be filed within that period because the exemption from the requirements of section 13 is only in respect of the decree and not the suit. If the decree, as contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant, has to be obtained within the period of five years, there was no need to specify that the suit has to be filed within that period because the exemption from the requirements of section 13 is only in respect of the decree and not the suit. There was, therefore, no need to mention about the time of the filing of the suit." In that case, this Court dealt with the Notification dated July 30, 1965, issued under section 3 of the Act which is in the following terms : "......In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to direct that the provisions of section 13 of the said Act shall not apply in respect of decrees for ejectment of tenants in possession of building which satisfy the following conditions, namely : (a) Buildings constructed during the years 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963 are exempted from all the provisions of the said Act for a period of five years to be calculated from the dates of their completion, and (b) During the aforesaid period of exemption suits for ejectment of tenants in possession of those buildings were or are instituted in civil courts by the landlords against the tenants and decrees of ejectment were or are passed." 7. The notification with which we are concerned in these matters is extracted in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, which reads as under : "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (Punjab Act 3 of 1949), as applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh, is pleased to direct that the provisions of section 13 of the said Act shall not apply to buildings, exempted from the provisions of the Act for period of five years vide Chandigarh Administration Notification No. 352 LD 73/602 dated the 31st January, 1973, as modified by Chandigarh Administration Notification No. 2249-LD-73/3474, dated the 25th September, 1972, in respect of decrees passed by Civil Court in suits for ejectment of tenants in possession of those buildings instituted by the landlords against such tenants during the period of exemption whether such decrees were or are passed during the period of exemption or on any time thereafter." 8. Thus, we find that the notification under consideration in these appeals was not exactly the same as was the one under consideration in the earlier decision. In any case, the order passed by us on April 23, 1986, and further clarified on April 30, 1986, needs no further clarification. According to us, the case referred to a larger bench are only those where suits were instituted by the landlords after the expiry of the period of exemption and they do not cover cases where suits were instituted prior to the expiry of the period of exemption. 9. No further directions are necessary.