Skip to content


Kalachand Shaw Vs. Ramani Mohan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1944Cal321
AppellantKalachand Shaw
RespondentRamani Mohan
Excerpt:
- .....order, appellant 1 was not in a position to get any help. appellant 2 is not a party to the decree at all. he could therefore only make the application if he were willing to admit that as an undertenant of appellant 1 he is liable to be ejected in execution of the decree obtained against appellant 1. mr. ghose has made that admission on his behalf. as ngainst the decree-holder his case is no better than that of defendant 1. if his case was true, he might have been able to plead the order in a suit for ejectment brought against him by appellant 1. it could not however possibly be said that he holds rooms in this hut under the decree-holder. the appeal is dismissed as incompetent and there is nothing in the case which would justify me in interfering in revision. i make no order as to costs.
Judgment:

Henderson, J.

1. This appeal is directed against an Order of the Munsif refusing to vary a decree under the provisions of Section 11, Calcutta House Rent Control Order, 1943. A preliminary question arises as to the competency of the appeal. This is not an objection Uinder Section 47, Civil P.C. It is an application asking for a variation in the decree. No doubt if the Munsif had allowed the application, the varied decree might have been appealable as a decree; but he has merely rejected it. I am therefore of the opinion that the appeal is not competent. It therefore remains to consider whether I should interfere in revision. Appellant 1 is the judgment-dobtor against whom the decree for ejectment has been passed. He constructed a hut on the land. Appellant 2 is said to be a sub-tenant of some of the rooms. Before the Munsif could make an Order varying the decree, he would have to be of opinion that the decree would not have been passed if this Order has been in operation at the time. The Courts below were obviously right when they said that in view of the definition of 'house' in the order, appellant 1 was not in a position to get any help. Appellant 2 is not a party to the decree at all. He could therefore only make the application if he were willing to admit that as an undertenant of appellant 1 he is liable to be ejected in execution of the decree obtained against appellant 1. Mr. Ghose has made that admission on his behalf. As ngainst the decree-holder his case is no better than that of defendant 1. If his case was true, he might have been able to plead the Order in a suit for ejectment brought against him by appellant 1. It could not however possibly be said that he holds rooms in this hut under the decree-holder. The appeal is dismissed as incompetent and there is nothing in the case which would justify me in interfering in revision. I make no Order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //