MOHON LAL KHETTRY Vs. CHUNI LAL KHETTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the landlord. substantially under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for revision of an order passed by a Presidency Small Cause Court Judge on the 28th June. 1950. Art. 227 of the Constitution was also mentioned in the heading of the application but that article has hardly any application in the circumstances of the present case and as such I proceed to decide the matter only under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The facts which have given rise to the present application are briefly as follows: the Opposite Party was a tenant under the present Petitioner. On the 12th May. 1949, the Petitioner filed proceedings under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act against the Opposite Party for eviction on the ground of ipso facto determination of the tenancy for non-payment of" rent. On the 4th January. 1950. the Lower Court passed an order in favour of the present Petitioner granting his prayer and directing the Opposite Party to deliver possession on the 30th April, 1950. In the meantime the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act of 1950 came Into force and the present Opposite Party applied before the learned Judge under section 18 of that Act for vacating the order for possession. By his order, dated the 28th June, 1950 the learned Judge allowed the application under section 12 (1) of the Act and set aside the order for possession.

(3.) On behalf of the landlord Petitioner, it is contended before me that in the circumstances of the present case, section 18 (1) of the Act of 1950 has no application inasmuch as the order for possession passed by the learned Judge on the 4th January. 1950 was not a decree within the meaning of that section. So far as this objection is concerned, the matter fell for decision in a very recent case, namely, the case of Rai Bahadur Atulya Dhan Banerjee Vs. Sudhang-shu Bhusan Dutta 55 CWN 848 (1951) where a Division Bench of this Court has ruled that the expression "Decree for recovery of possession'' in section 18 of the 1950 Act should be broadly construed so as to include an order for recovery of possession under Chap. VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. That recent Bench decision is binding upon me and following that decision 1 overrule the first objection.