KHAGENDRA NATH DAS Vs. BANKU BEHARI MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is directed against the order No. 65 dated 5th Jan., 1985. Banku Behari Mondal the defendant/opposite party herein filed an application under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is claimed by the said Banku Behari that the landlord himself is a Thika Tenant under one Amalendu Nath Ganguly of 1, Kalicharan Sstt Lane and Banku Behari Mondal is a Bharatia under the revisionist. It is further claimed that the plea is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Sec. 19 of Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition & Regulation) Act, 1981 and the execution proceeding should be treated to be ineffective. This aspect was dealt with by the revisionist in paragraph' 5 and 6 of the answer which reads thus:-

(2.) Mr. N. C. Saba, learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 1948 of 1968. Tho appeal was filed by Banku Behari Mondal against the judgment delivered by the Subordinate Judge, Fourth Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 1194 of 1967 reversing the decree of the learned Munsif, Third Court, Seaidah dated 22nd June, 1967. The relevant portion of the aforesaid decision is quoted below:

(3.) I have considered the basic grievances of the defendant/opposite party as would appear from the petition under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant/opposite party set up a new plea under the provision of Sec. 19 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition & Regulation) Act, 1981. Objection was filed to the said petition. By the said object on the revisionist made. It clear that the execution case is quite maintainable and the defendant is not entitled to invoke Sec. 19 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition & Regulation) Act, 1981 which has been misinterpreted in this case and by implication the present execution case cannot abate.