Mahltosh Majumdar, J. - (1.) This Revision is directed against the order No. 65 dated 5th January, 1985. Banku Behari Mondal the defendant/opposite party herein filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is claimed by the said Banku Behari that the landlord himself is a Thika Tenant under one Amalendu Nath Ganguly of 1, Kalicharan Sstt Lane and Banku Behari Mondal is a Bharatia under the revisionist. It is further claimed that the plea is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 19 of Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition & Regulation) Act, 1981 and the execution proceeding should be treated to be ineffective. This aspect was dealt with by the revisionist in paragraph' 5 and 6 of the answer which reads thus:- "5. The statements of para 2 of the petition under reply is denied. The execution case is quite maintainable and the judgment debtor is not entitled to any notice as alleged. 6. The statements of para 3 of the petition under reply is denied. The purport of Section 19 of Calcutta Thika Tenancy Regulations Act has been misinterpreted and even by implication the present execution case cannot abate."
(2.) Mr. N. C. Saba, learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 1948 of 1968. Tho appeal was filed by Banku Behari Mondal against the judgment delivered by the Subordinate Judge, Fourth Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 1194 of 1967 reversing the decree of the learned Munsif, Third Court, Seaidah dated 22nd June, 1967. The relevant portion of the aforesaid decision is quoted below: "It is also to be seen that the defendant did not take recourse to the provisions of Section 17(1) and (2) of West Bengal Premier Tenancy Act although it had been alleged in the plaint that he was a defaulter in the payment of rent since Sravan 1370 B S. Sometime in September 1964 be filed an application before the Court for permission to adjust certain amount of arrear rent and also current rent. The Court allowed his application at his own risk. After failing to prove his story of agreement and adjustment from rent the defendant can be said to be a defaulter in payment of rent since Sravan 1370 B S. The suit was instituted on 25.5.64. The above discussion would go to indicate that it was brought after legal and valid termination of the tenancy of the defendant/appellant who was a defaulter in payment of rent within the meaning of Clause (i) of Section 13(1) and also guilty of acts as contemplated in Clause(b) of Section 13(1) of West Bengal Tenancy Act, 1956. I, therefore, find that the lover appellate court rightly decreed the suit brought by the plaintiff/respondent. In this result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. The defendant/appellant do vacate the disputed premises within four months from this date, failing which the plaintiff/respondent would be entitled to evict him therefrom in execution of the decree."
(3.) I have considered the basic grievances of the defendant/opposite party as would appear from the petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant/opposite party set up a new plea under the provision of Section 19 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition & Regulation) Act, 1981. Objection was filed to the said petition. By the said object on the revisionist made. It clear that the execution case is quite maintainable and the defendant is not entitled to invoke Section 19 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition & Regulation) Act, 1981 which has been misinterpreted in this case and by implication the present execution case cannot abate.;