RAJA DHIRENCLRA NARAYAN ROY Vs. M IMAMUCIDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before me raised an action in ejectment, being Suit No. 1052 of 1966, in the City Civil Court, calcutta, against his tenant M. Imamuddin alias Md. Imamuddin, and obtained a decree on September 30, 1966. When he put the decree,to execution for recovery of possession of the subject-matter of the tenancy and the decree, : namely a shop-room on the ground-floor of 15 A Panchu Khansama Lane, he was resisted, as it now appears, at the instance of one Subodh Chandra mitra, Opposite Party No. 3 before me, in assertion of his right in the tenancy by virtue of a transfer from imamuddin on the basis of a registered sale-deed dated May 26, 1964. The petitioner qua decree-hoder complained of such resistance under Or. 21, rule 97, of the Code of Civil Procedure, and applied to the court for delivery of possession with the aid of the police. An application as this was rejected on the ground that Subodh Ch. Mitra, because of the transfer, notice of which was given to the petitioner qua landlord, was a bona fide claimant iniassertion of his right to be in possession, and could not, therefore, be put out of passession. Hence this rule by the decree-holder under section. 115 ibid.

(2.) THE tenancy is governed by the Premises Tenancy Act 12 of 195k, sub-section 1 of the 14th section of which bears, in so far as it is material here :

(3.) THUS, what is seen here is not merely a wrong decision, which the court below has the jurisdiction to come to, depriving me of my jurisdiction to interfere. What is seen is a little more : the court having acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction, overlooking the provisions of section 14, sub-section 1, clause (b), and, consequently, with illegality, in sum, a jurisdictional error, which gives me jurisdiction to interfere.