1. This is a Rule against an order of a Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta passed on July 8, 1950 setting aside, on an application made under Section 18 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, an order for possession passed under Chap. 7 of the Calcutta Small Cause Courts Act on March 13, 1950.
2. The proceeding originally began on July 6, 1948 when the Calcutta Rent Ordinance was in force.
3. The principal contention now put forward here is that Section 18 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act 1950 had no application to the case as it was commenced under the Ordinance. I have already dealt with this contention in the case of 'Jethmul Sethia v. Aloke Ganguly', Civil Revn. Case No. 1059 of 1950. Under Section 12 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act 1948, which came into force on the 1st of December 1948, opportunity was given for tenants, in pending cases, to catch up, as it were, in the matter of arrears, and therefore in my opinion if they failed to do so, arid an order for possession was passed against them after the Act of 1948 came into force, their case is one which comes within the terms of Section 18 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act 1950, viz., as being one where an order for recovery of possession has been made in default of payment of the arrears of rent under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act 1948. Therefore there is no substance in this contention.
4. It is now sought to be urged that the effect of the amending Act LXII of 1950 is to deprive the tenant of the benefits of the Act XVII of 1950. The present was not a case of 'ipso facto' default under Section 12 (3) of the Act of 1948. By the unhappy way in which amendment has been made in Act LXII of 1950, the benefits are now only given to tenants who formerly were liable to ejectment on the ground of 'ipso facto' default for three months under Section 12 (3) of the Act of 1948. I do not think, however, that the present opposite party has been deprived of the benefit of the Act as it stood at the time the order was passed. The order passed on July 8, 1950 was correct I under the law in force when it was passed. The amended Section 18 (1) has not in itself directly been made retrospective, in the sense that there is no provision that the amended words are to be deemed to have been in force from the commencement of Act XVII of 1950. I can find nothing in Sections 5 and 6 of the amending Act LXII of 1950 which requires me to apply . the amended provision of Section 18 (1) in the present revision case.
5. The result is that the Rule is discharged. I make no order as to costs.