CHATURBHUJ KISHENLAL Vs. SYEDUR RAHMAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Defendant is the Appellant. This appeal comes before us by virtue of the leave to appeal under the Letters Patent having been granted by the previous Chief Justice Hon. Mr. Justice G. Mehrotra, who passed the judgment complained against in this appeal on the 4th July 1966 in Misc. Appeal (S) 10/63.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly are that the Respondent brought a suit against the judgment debtor, Appellant before us, in the Munsiff's Court at Jorhat for ejectment and arrears of rent. This suit was decreed on 22nd December, 1959. Against this judgment and decree the Appellant preferred an appeal to the Subordinate Judge's Court at Jorhat and the learned Subordinate Judge held by his judgment dated 27th May 1960 that as the Defendant Appellant herein had erected a permanent structure the land in question, he was protected by the provisions of the Assam Non -Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 -Assam Act XII of 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), but that as the Defendant was in arrears of rent, he Was liable to ejectment. The decree in appeal was prepared on 20th June 1960 and this judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge allowed thirty days time to the Defendant Appellant for depositing the arrears of rent decreed by him in terms of Section 5(3) of the Act, which is as follows:

(3.) ANOTHER contention raised before the learned single Judge was that the lower appellate Court was wrong in refusing to extend time for making the deposit by virtue of Section 148, Code of Civil Procedure. The learned single Judge held that as the Subordinate Judge had already disposed of the appeal before him and passed a decree, he is no longer in seisin of the matter and there is no question of granting extension of time. It is contended before us by Mr. Ghose, the learned Counsel for the Appellant that this, view is not correct and that as time was granted by the Subordinate Judge for making the deposit, he would have jurisdiction to extend the time under Section 148, Code of Civil procedure. This argument is sought to be based on the language of Section 148, Code of Civil procedure, which itself supplies the answer to the same.