Skip to content


Abinash @ Ambarish Chandra Roy Vs. S.C. Sreemani - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy;Property
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Rule No. 1053 of 1949
Judge
Reported inAIR1950Cal466,54CWN535
ActsWest Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948 - Section 16, 16(1) and 16(2)
AppellantAbinash @ Ambarish Chandra Roy
RespondentS.C. Sreemani
Appellant AdvocateSiddheswar Chakravarty, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAbani Kanta Roy, Adv.
Cases ReferredSadar Ali v. Dalimuddin
Excerpt:
- .....or tried by any court other than the said court of small causes of calcutta' are applicable to pending proceedings. the paint was considered in the case of amulya ratan v. megh mala, 53 c. w. n. 474 but it was not necessary for it to be decided then. that case related to a proceeding which was pending in the high court and it was pointed out by the hon'ble the chief justice that if the section applied to pending proceedings one would have expected provision in that act as to what was to happen to pending proceedings in the high court which by the provision of section 16 (1), if so interpreted, were put an end to. i have been referred to the case of sadar ali v. dalimuddin, 56 cal. 512 : (a. i. r (15) 1928 cal. 610 f.b.) but that dealt with the effect of the amendment of the letters.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Roxburgh, J.

1. This is a Rule against an order passed in appeal purporting to be made Under Section 16, West Bengal Bent Control Act, 1948. The landlord brought a suit for rent ON, 5th May 1918. The Act in question came into force on 1st December 1948. The decision of the trial Court was made on 14th February 1948.

2. The short point taken before me is that as the suit began before the new Act came into force the suit itself is not one Under Section 16 (1) of the Act and therefore there was no appeal Under Section 16 (2). The point does not appear to have been taken in the lower appellate Court. It could only be said that the suit was one covered by Section. 16 (l) of the Act if it be held that the words 'or tried by' in that section which says 'that no suit or proceeding by a landlord against a tenant for the recovery of rent or possession of any premises which the Court of Small Causes of Calcutta is competent to try, shall be instituted or tried by any Court other than the said Court of Small Causes of Calcutta' are applicable to pending proceedings. The paint was considered in the case of Amulya Ratan v. Megh Mala, 53 C. W. N. 474 but it was not necessary for it to be decided then. That case related to a proceeding which was pending in the High Court and it was pointed out by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice that if the section applied to pending proceedings one would have expected provision in that Act as to what was to happen to pending proceedings in the High Court which by the provision of Section 16 (1), if so interpreted, were put an end to. I have been referred to the case of Sadar Ali v. Dalimuddin, 56 Cal. 512 : (A. I. R (15) 1928 Cal. 610 F.B.) but that dealt with the effect of the amendment of the Letters Patent by which the right of appeal previously existing was taken away. I am of opinion that it cannot be said that Section 16 (1) of the Act in question was intended to apply to pending proceedings. Consequently Section 16 (2) does not apply. No right of appeal was given in pending cases, that is to say, in the present case.

3. The result is that the Bench of three Judges of the Small Cause Court bad no jurisdiction to hear the present appeal The plaintiff had some right Under Section 38, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, and this appeal should be treated as an application thereunder and dealt with accordingly.

4. The order of the Bench is accordingly set aside and the case is remanded to the Small Cause Court to be treated as one Under Section 38, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. There will be no order as to costs.


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