Doctrine of merger governs execution: an appellate decree is the operative decree, defeating belated reliance on tenancy relief provisions.

Where a trial court decree is carried in appeal and the appeal is disposed of on merits, the appellate decree becomes the operative and executable decree because the original decree merges into it. On that basis, the decree dated 8 January 1969 was treated as the relevant decree for execution. Section 17D of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 applied only to decrees for recovery of possession passed before the commencement of the 1968 amendment, so it could not be invoked to set aside the appellate decree. The tenant's attempt to reopen the eviction decree therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the decree passed by the trial court merged in the decree passed by the High Court in appeal, so that the appellate decree became the operative decree for execution; (ii) whether section 17D of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 applied to permit setting aside the decree for eviction.

Issue (i): Whether the trial court decree merged in the High Court decree

Analysis: Where a decree of the court of first instance is carried in appeal and the appeal is heard and disposed of on merits, the decree capable of execution is the appellate decree. The doctrine of merger applies because the inferior court's decree loses its identity and the operative adjudication is that of the superior court, even where the appeal is dismissed and the decree below is affirmed.

Conclusion: The trial court decree merged in the High Court decree, and the High Court decree was the only executable decree.

Issue (ii): Whether section 17D of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 applied to the decree

Analysis: Section 17D applied only to a decree for recovery of possession passed before the commencement of the amending Act of 1968. Since the decree that survived for execution was the High Court decree dated 8 January 1969, it was passed after the relevant commencement date and therefore fell outside the statutory scope of section 17D. The earlier trial court decree could not be isolated for the purpose of relief under that provision.

Conclusion: Section 17D did not apply, and the decree could not be set aside under that provision.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the appellate decree superseded the trial court decree, defeating the tenant's attempt to invoke section 17D for reopening the eviction decree.

Ratio Decidendi: When a decree is affirmed or otherwise disposed of in contested appellate proceedings, the appellate decree alone is the operative and executable decree, and statutory relief tied to the date of the decree must be tested by reference to that appellate decree.

---