1. It is argued that the Presidency Small Cause Courts had no jurisdiction to remove the obstruction by the petitioner. I am unable to accept this argument. It is clear Section 48 of the Small Cause Courts Act applies the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to proceedings under chapter VII and the language of it is wide enough to include a power fact under Order 21 Rule 98 Civil Procedure Code. A similar view was taken in the case as reported in Bagimall v. Appadurai Gramany  7 M.l.T. 385. To hold otherwise would lead to the extraordinary result that, though Small Cause Court can pass an order in ejectment against a tenant, its order could be defeated by the tenant giving over possession to a third party a day previous to the date fixed for ejectment. The Small Cause Court has power to remove any improper obstruction to the carrying out of its own order.
2. It was next contended that this was not a proper case to direct removal of obstruction as petitioner claims a title to the property. He has according to his own case no title at present but only a right to enforce specific performance of a contract which, it may be mentioned, the respondent denies and he has taken possession from Karim, the respondent's tenant, against whom the order in ejectment was made. The order of the lower Court removing obstruction was clearly right in the circumstances.
3. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.