JUDGMENT : B.L. Hansaria, C.J. - The petitioner approached the House Rent Controller, Cuttack on 20-6-1988 seeking an. order of eviction against the opp. parties. A prayer for determination of fair rent was also made. Provisions of Sections 5, 7 (2) and (iii) and 7 (4) of the Orissa House_ Rent Control Act 1967 (hereinafter called, the Act") were invoked for these purposes. It may be stated that Section 5 of the Act deals with determination of fair rent; Section 7,(2)(i) permits eviction if the tenant be a wilful defaulter; Section 7 (2)(iii) allows a landlord to' obtain' possession if the tenant "Has committed acts of damage as are likely to impair materially the;. value or utility of the house; and bec 7 (4)-authorises.a landlord to apply to the Controller seeking eviction of the tenant if the house is bona fide required for use and occupation of the landlord or any member of the family. As the Act which was a temporary statute had ceased to be in force with effect from 4-5-1983, it has been held by the learned Controller that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter as he was approached on 20-6-1988. Hence this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 2. In assailing the impugned order, Shri Bhuyan has contended that as the default had taken place before the Act had expired and so also the damage had been caused earlier to the date of expiry and the bona fide need of the house had arisen before the Act had expired,- a right had accrued to the landlord to demand vacant possession of the premises and a corresponding liability had been incurred by the tenant in this regard; and, as such, despite expiry of the Act, the landlord could approach the Controller in view of what has been stated in Section 1(4) of the Act rend with Sec 5 (1)(c) of the Orissa General Clauses Act which permits proceedings to be instituted, continued or enforced in respect of rights and liabilities acquired or accrued when the Art was in force. Reliance is placed for this submission on a Bench decision of this Court rendered in Abdul Gafoor v. Md. Sulev man . 1990(ll)CLR 262. Reference is also made to Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Vs. Reliance is placed for this submission on a Bench decision of this Court rendered in Abdul Gafoor v. Md. Sulev man . 1990(ll)CLR 262. Reference is also made to Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, wherein, while dealing with the liability incurred under the Emergency Risks (Factories) Insurance Act, which was also a temporary statute, it was stated that the same could be enforced even after the expiry of the Act, Some strength is also sought, to be derived by the learned counsel from another Bench decision of this Court rendered in Shadi Ram Sharma v. State of Orissa 69 (1990) CLT 78), where it was observed that the intention of the legislature qua the Act was to save the rights and obligations which had already accrued under the Act. 3. Though the aforesaid decisions and in particular what was held in Abdul Gafoor assist the petitioner as much as it was held therein that as the tenant had wilfully defaulted in making payment of rent before the Act had expired, a right had accrued in favour of the landlord to demand vacant possession of the premises and a corresponding liability had been incurred by the tenant in this regard under the provisions of the Act which could be enforced with the aid of the Act despite the expiry of the Act, Shri Roy appearing for the opp. parties brings to our notice two other Division Bench decisions of this Court which have taken a contrary view. These decisions are (1) Umakanta Pradhan v. Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate 69 (1990) CLT 207 and (2) Biswanath Agrawala Vs. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate-cum-House Rent Controller and Another. In Umakanta, this Court has observed as below: "Assuming for the sake, of argument that the default in payment of rent or any other ground for eviction of the tenant enumerated in the said section (meaning Section 7 of the Act) arose before the expiry of the Act, it did not create a right in favour of the landlord to be entitled to possession of the house. It merely gave a right to approach the House Rent Controller with a prayer to evict the tenant and to put him in possession thereof. It merely gave a right to approach the House Rent Controller with a prayer to evict the tenant and to put him in possession thereof. This, in our opinion, is not a right acquired or accrued within the meaning of Section 5 (l)(c)of the Orissa General Clauses Act." It was, therefore, held that an application for eviction could not be entertained even in respect of default committed during the subsistence of the Act after the life of the Act had expired This view taken in Umakanta was cited with approval by another Division Bench in Biswanath. Further, in Biswanath it was held that no application u/s 5 of the Act for determination of the rent could be tiled after the expiry of the Act even in respect of a period when the Act was in force. 4. The aforesaid two decisions, therefore, do sustain the view taken by the learned House Rent Controller In the present case. .Indeed-in his impugned order he has relied on the decision rendered in Urrakanta. May we say that the attention, of the Bench which decided Abdul Gafoor was not drawn to these two cases. 5. There is thus an apparent conflict in the decisions of this Court rendered in Abdul Gafoor on the one hand and Umakanta Pradhan and Biswanath Agrawala on the ether hand. To resolve this conflict, we desire that the matter be examined by a larger Bench. 6. Let the records be placed before the learned Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate Bench for this purpose. D.M. Patnaik, J. 7. I agree.