1. This Rule is against the order of a Judge of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes allowing an application under Section 18(1) of Act XVII (17) of 1950. The only point urged here now in view of the amendment of Act XVII (17) of 1950 by the later Act LXII (62) of 1950 is that the order in question having been made by consent the provisions of Section 18 (1) are not applicable. Reliance for this is placed on the decision of 'Manick Chandra Pal v. Haripada', 52 Cal W N 230; Actually, in my opinion, it does not support the contention on the facts of this case. There was some discussion there of the question of the effect of a consent decree in regard to a similar provision in Section 9B(3) of the Calcutta House Rent Control Order. Finally, it was assumed for the present purposes in that case that a consent decree did come within those provisions. It was then pointed out however that the suit in question was one based purely on a notice to quit and that there was nothing to be ascertained from the grounds of compromise on what basis the decree for possession had been made. In other words, there was nothing to show that the basis was a default under the previous law relief against which was given by the later provision. , In the present case, the facts are quite different. The clearest allegation was made in the plaint that the defendant was an ipso facto defaulter under Section 12 (3) of the Act of 1948. The memorandum of appearance indeed admits substantially that the defendant was such a defaulter but a plea is taken that this default was due to the practice of the landlord himself who only wanted rent paid at three or four months' interval. Thus, on the materials present in this case, it is very clear that this is a case where the basis of the order for possession was ipso facto default in payment of rent under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1948 relief against which has been at last clearly given by Act LXII (62) of 1950.
2. This Rule must accordingly be discharge ed. I make no order as to costs.