TARAK CHANDRA DE Vs. ASOKE PROSANNA BAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who is a tenant of a shop room in the town of Mymensingh, was required by a notice dated 6-8-1943 to quit the premises by 31 day of the month. He did not comply and thereupon a suit was brought for his ejectment on 3-9-1943, which was decreed on 26-4- 1944. An appeal against this decree was dismissed on 10-11-1944. Execution of the decree was commenced on 23-4-1945, but was met by the appellant with an objection under Section 47, Civil P.C., which was based on para. 10A(2), Bengal House Rent Control Order. It was contended that in view of the provisions of Para. 10A(2), the decree could not be executed without the permission of the Rent Controller which, admittedly had not been obtained.

(2.) The executing Court gave effect to this contention and directed that the proceedings must be stayed till the decree-holder produced proof of the Rent Controller's permission. On appeal, the lower appellate Court held that para. 10A(2), House Rent Control Order, had no application to the facts of the present ease and in that view dismissed the appellant's objection under Section 47, Civil P.C. The present appeal is directed against that order.

(3.) The respondent decree-holder, while founding his suit on the notice to quit, stated in the plaint that he had served such notice inasmuch as he required the premises for his own use. At the end of the plaint he added a series of statements one of which was to the effect that the appellant was in default for a period of over two years for which a separate suit would be brought.