LAKHAPATI DEBI JAISWAL Vs. BHAGATI PRESSING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule arises out of an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against Order No. 74 dated 19. 7. 82 passed by the Munsif, 2nd additional Court, Howrah, in Money suit No. 30 of 1978, holding that he had the jurisdiction to try the suit and answering the issue of jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant has come up to this Court by way of revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the validity of the said order on the ground that the Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction or in other words, had no jurisdiction to answer the issue in favour of the plaintiff in view of Section 19 of the Calcutta thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981.

(2.) SECTION 19 of the said Act provides:

(3.) MR. Ganguly, learned Counsel appearing in support of the Rule contends that in view of that Section 19 the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction because all proceedings including appeals must abate in view of the amended provision of the Thika Tenancy Act. His main contention is that after the amendment the state Government has become the landlord and as no provision has been made with regard to the recovery of arrears of rent from the erstwhile Thika tenants it can be safely assumed that the taw does not permit any civil proceeding for recovery of the rent, even arrears.