DURLAV CHANDRA GHOSE A FIRM Vs. BENARASHI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 8th October 1947, the opposite party made an application in the Small Cause Court for an order for delivery of possession of the land of which the present petitioner ?was a tenant. The order directing delivery of possession was passed on 2nd August 1948. The Court took no notice of the objection raised by the petitioner that he could not be evicted without payment of compensation for the valuable structures he had constructed on the building with respect to which he was a tenant, with the con-sent of the landlord. The order passed on 2nd August 1948, was in these words "Writ of possession to issue and possession to be given on the 28th September 1948."The date was thereafter extended from time to time and before possession had been given the Ticca Tenancy Ordinance came into force on 26th October 1948, and thereafter on 28th February 1949, the Tikka Tenancy Act came into operation. On 7th May 1949, the present petitioner filed an application purporting to be under Section 28 and under Section 29, Tikka Tenancy Act. The prayer was for an order on the plaintiff to show cause why the decree passed in the suit should not be rescinded and set aside or an order of dismissal of the suit should not be recorded The ground given in the application was that the decree and order for giving up possession was "not in conformity with any provision of the said Act other than Section 27 (S) of the Act."

(2.) The application itself did not mention the particular provision of the Act with which the decree was alleged not to be in conformity. It appears from the order that was passed by the learned Judge on the 9th July that three points were urged before him.

(3.) The first point urged was that the land was-not required by the landlord for his own occupation or for the purpose of building on the land' within the meaning of Section 3, Sub-section (4).