(1.) On December 6, 1949 the landlord petitioner obtained from the Small Cause Court an order for recovery of possession of the premises from the tenant opposite party on the ground of ipso facto termination of tenancy under the Rent Control Act of 1948 in summary proceedings instituted under Chap. VII, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. The order directed possession to be given on January 3, 1951. On 31-3-1959 the Rent Control Act of 1950 came into force. The latter Act was amended by the Amendment Act of 1950 which came into force on November 30, 1950. On January 2, 1951 the tenant applied for vacating the order for possession. On January 8, 1951. the Court directed payment of a certain sum of money and on such payment on January 19, 1951 vacated the order for possession. The landlord has moved this Court in revision against the order dated January 19, 1951.
(2.) It is now settled law that the expression "decree for recovery of possession" in Section 18(1). Rent Control Act of 1950 includes an order for recovery of possession under Chap. VII, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. This was first decided in -- 'Atulyadhan v. Sudhangsu, 55 Cal W. N. 343. In that case Das J. observed that ordinarily decree means the formal expression of an adjudication made in a suit which conclusively determines the rights of the parties so far as regards the Court expressing it is concerned but that in certain parts of the 1950 Act the term suit may include proceedings under Chap. VII, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act.
(3.) It follows from the reasons given in that decision and Lahiri J. so decided in -- 'Dhanesh Prokash v. Lalit Mohan', 55 Cal W. N. 347 that the word "suit" in Section 18(5), Rent Control Act of 1950 includes a proceeding for recovery of possession under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. Lahiri J. held that for purposes of Sub-section (5) of Section 18 proceedings in which no order for recovery of possession is passed is pending and the tenant is entitled to relief under that sub-section.