The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of this Court in Mohd. Mahmood v. Tikam Das(•) in support of his contention. That case arose under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The provisions of that Act, though not in pari materia with the provisions of the Act now in question, are similar to those of the Act in many respects. There, the landlord terminated the tenancy before the said Act came into force, filed a suit for ejectment and obtained a decree for eviction on June 23, 1962, after the said Act came into force. The said Act came into force on December 40, 1961. On June 25 and 26, 1962, the appellants served notices on the landlord under s. 15(2) of the said Act claiming that as the tenant had sub-let the premises to them before the Act had come into force with the consent of the landlord, they had become his direct tenants under s. 16(2) of the said Act and on June 28, 1962, the appellants filed a suit against both the landlord and the tenant in a civil court praying for a declaration that they had, in the circumstances. become direct tenants of the premises under the landlord. On June 30, 1962, the landlord sent a reply to the notices .sent by the appellants in which he denied that the sub-letting by the tenant had been with hi& consent or was lawful. Here it may be mentioned that s. I 5(2) of that Act corresponds to s. 17(2) of the Act and sub-s. (3) of s. 15 of that Act corresponds to sub-s. (3) of s. 17 of the Act. Section 45(1) of that Act, which bars a suit in a civil court is analogous to s. 50(1) of the Act. If the dispute was one that could be decided by the Rent Controlling Authority under s. 15(3) of that Act, the suit in respect of the dispute would not be maintainable by reason of s. 45(1) of the said Act. Under sub-s. (3) of s. 15 of that Act, a sub-tenant could make an application to the Rent Controlling Authority for deciding a dispute within two months of the date of issue of notice by him. Instead of filing such an application, the tenants filed a suit in the civil court within the said time prescribed. On those facts, this Court held by reason of s. 45(1) of that Act, the suit was not maintainable. But in so holding this Court left open the question whether such a suit could be filed in a civil court after the period of limitation prescnbed under s. 15(3) of that Act had expired. This Court obser~ed:
