Skip to content


Ramani Mohan Vs. Jogesh Chandra Das - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Rule No. 1399 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Cal771,57CWN537
ActsWest Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 - Sections 6, 18, 18(1), 18(4) and 18(5); ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115 and 151
AppellantRamani Mohan
RespondentJogesh Chandra Das
Appellant AdvocateSudhir Chandra Majumdar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateJitendra Nath Guha and ;Paritosh Sarkar, Advs.
Cases ReferredSm. Radharani Das v. Sisir Kumar
Excerpt:
- .....additional court, alipore, one dated 11-4-1951 allowing his application under section 6 of the new west bengal act 62 of 1950 for rescission of an ejectment decree passed against him on 25-9-1950 taut directing him to deposit a sum of rs. 313-15-3 within fifteen days and the other dated 5-6-1951 rejecting his application under section 151, civil p. c. for accepting the deposit, then offered to be made, by enlarging the time given under the previous order dated 11-4-1951.2. the relevant circumstances may be shortly stated as follows:-- the landlord-opposite party brought the ejectment suit against the tenant-petitioner on 13-5-1949 alleging that the tenancy had been ipso facto determined under the rent control act of 1948 then in force. this suit was decreed ex parte on 25-9-1950. in the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P.N. Mookerjee, J.

1. In this Rule the tenant-petitioner challenges two orders of the learned Munsif, 1st Additional Court, Alipore, one dated 11-4-1951 allowing his application under Section 6 of the new West Bengal Act 62 of 1950 for rescission of an ejectment decree passed against him on 25-9-1950 taut directing him to deposit a sum of Rs. 313-15-3 within fifteen days and the other dated 5-6-1951 rejecting his application under Section 151, Civil P. C. for accepting the deposit, then offered to be made, by enlarging the time given under the previous order dated 11-4-1951.

2. The relevant circumstances may be shortly stated as follows:-- The landlord-opposite party brought the ejectment suit against the tenant-petitioner on 13-5-1949 alleging that the tenancy had been ipso facto determined under the Rent Control Act of 1948 then in force. This suit was decreed ex parte on 25-9-1950. In the meantime the Rent Control Act of 1950 (West Bengal Act 17 of 1950) had come into force and this Act was later amended by West Bengal Act 62 of 1950 to which reference has been made above. On 22-1-1951 the petitioner applied under Section 6 of this new Rent Control (Amendment) Act of 1950 (West Bengal Act 62 of 1950) for rescission of the ejectment decree. This was allowed on 11th April 1951 and the petitioner was directed to make the requisite deposit, viz., deposit of a sum of Rs. 313-15-3 within fifteen days. The deposit was not made within the time allowed but the Court instead of passing any final orders in the matter directed it to be put up for further orders on 7-5-1951. On 5-5-1951 the tenant-petitioner filed an application under Section 151, Civil P. C. offering to make the deposit forthwith and praying for acceptance of the same upon enlargement of the time given therefor by the previous order dated 11-4-1951. This application was eventually fixed for hearing in June 1951 and meanwhile the tenant petitioner made the deposit at his risk on 17-5-1951. Thereafter by his order dated 5-6-1951 the learned Munsif dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The present Rule was then obtained from this Court on 21st June 1951.

3. From what I have stated above it is quite clear that Section 151, Civil P. C. can have no application to this case. The order dated 11-4-1951 was passed on an application under Section 6, West Rengal Act 62 of 1950. Under that section the Court may grant appropriate relief under Section 18, Rent Control Act of 1950 (West Bengal Act 17 of 1950). This relief can be granted either under Section 18, Sub-sections (1) to (4) or under Sub-section (5) of the said section read with Section 14 of the Act. In either case, however, the law clearly contemplates that whatever time is given to the tenant to make the requisite deposit that time is final and therefore cannot be extended by the Court under Section 151, Civil P. C. The learned Munsif was, therefore, right in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 151 of the Code and that order cannot be touched.

4. The question that still remains is whether the learned Munsif's order dated 11-4-1951 granting the petitioner only fifteen days' time to make the necessary deposit was right in law. It is quite clear from the said order that the learned Munsif obviously granted that time upon the view that in an application under Section 6 of the amending Act (West Bengal Act 62 of 1950) the part of Section 18 of the original Act (Act 17 of 1950) that is attracted is Sub-section (5) and that that sub-section entitles the Court only to grant relief under Section 14 of the Act and that, therefore, the maximum time that can be given for the making of the deposit would be fifteen days. It is contended before me by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the learned Munsif's view of the law was wrong and he ought to have held that in an application under Section 6 of the amending Act 62 of 1950 the part of Section 18 of the original Act 17 of 1950 which is attracted is the earlier part, viz., Sub-sections (1) to (4) and that, therefore, the Court has power to grant time up to a limit of forty days for making the necessary deposit. It is, accordingly, urged that the order passed by the learned Munsif on 11-4-1951 was wrong and should be revised in accordance with law.

5. In the view which I am taking it is not necessary for me to express any opinion on this question of law raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, viz., whether in an application under Section 6 of the amending Act 62 of 1950 the Court has power to grant relief under Sub-sections (1) to (4) or Sub-section (5) of Section 18 of the original Act 17 of 1950 and accordingly I express no opinion on the said question.

6. The material portion of the order dated 11-4-1951 runs as follows:

'Defendant is directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 313-15-3 within fifteen days. On such deposit the decree passed against the defendant would be vacated. To 27-4-1951 for further orders.'

This may or may not have been a final order on the petitioner's application under Section 6 of Act 62 of 1950. But it is not necessary for me to decide that question too as whatever be the nature of that order, whether final or not, that will not affect the decision of this Rule as will be presently seen below.

7. It has been held by a Bench of this Court in -- 'Sm. Radharani Das v. Sisir Kumar', : AIR1953Cal524 (A) that a final order on an application under Section 6, Rent Control (Amendment) Act of 1950 (West Bengal Act 62 of 1950) or Section 18 of the original Rent Control Act of 1950 (West Bengal Act 17 of 1950) is a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure and is appealable as such. If, therefore, the learned Munsif's order dated 11-4-1951 was a final order on the petitioner's application under Section 6 of the amending Act 62 of 1950 it was open to appeal and, therefore, not revisable under Section 115, Civil P.C. If, on the other hand, it was not a final order but was to be followed by a further order, this further order finally disposing of the petitioner's application under Section 6 of the amending Act would be appealable under the Code and, in such circumstances, the interlocutory order dated 11-4-1951 ought not to be interfered with under Section 115 of the Code, the petitioner's remedy obviously lying in an appeal against the final order to be passed on his said application under Section 6, Rent Control (Amendment) Act 62 of 1950. In either view, therefore, the learned Munsif's order dated 11-4-1951 cannot or at any rate, ought not to be interfered with in revision.

8. This Rule must, accordingly, fail and it is discharged leaving it open to the petitioner to take such steps in the matter as he may be advised to do in the light of the observations contained in this judgment.

9. There will be no order for costs in this Rule.


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